RE: AW: [Geopriv] Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-l o -profile-00

At 11:37 AM 7/15/2005 +1000, James Winterbottom wrote:

>To clarify a comment from James's recent email, floor is currently defined 
>as a string in the PIDF-LO draft, so 2.2 etc is okay.

I know that all elements are considered strings, but the spirit or essence 
of what civic will provide (and something Henning has stated repeatedly) is 
that geo (and 3825) doesn't provide the "mezzanine" name or attribute, 
therefore it is less desireable.

With that said (repeated), a <FLR/> element of 2.2 defeats the advantage 
sought by civic in this context.

The civic ID does have a place for the word "mezzanine", but we cannot 
calculate or compute or assume the first subfloor between the 1st and 2nd 
floor is the "mezzanine", and the second subfloor is the "entresol" - so 
floor 2.2 is just that, it's floor 2.2; and neither geo or civic has an 
advantage over the other.

However, floor names do change, and unless the build falls down, the number 
of floors doesn't - so the 3825 definition of the counting of floors seems 
the more precise (if that matters here).

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henning Schulzrinne 
>[<mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu>mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu]
>Sent: Friday, 15 July 2005 11:27 AM
>To: Winterbottom, James [WOLL:5500:EXCH]
>Cc: James M. Polk; Marc Linsner; 'GEOPRIV'
>Subject: Re: AW: [Geopriv] Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-l 
>o -profile-00
>
>James Winterbottom wrote:

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv