Re: [Uri-review] Re: early draft of a "geo:" URI scheme.
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Fri, 02 March 2007 15:43 UTC
Return-path: <uri-review-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HN9ua-00021c-8U; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:43:12 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HN9uY-00021F-Ux for uri-review@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:43:10 -0500
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HN9uU-0006JD-Hh for uri-review@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:43:10 -0500
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Mar 2007 15:43:05 -0000
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18R0idTPEgRWnz0J4qMMQNf83qKXSJoRlzG4EiT5L u8F3zQK3FwW9IU
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Alexander Mayrhofer <axelm-ietf@nona.net>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Re: early draft of a "geo:" URI scheme.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:43:06 +0100
Message-ID: <kbhgu2dd5mkcmnhdhj6hr76e8l1rbj1n1p@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <45E6DCC5.70404@nona.net> <45E71348.6C4C@xyzzy.claranet.de> <45E80395.8040101@nona.net>
In-Reply-To: <45E80395.8040101@nona.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org
* Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: >Consider calculating the spatial distance between two geo: URIs. That would >not work with, let's say - a "data:" URI, because the semantics are not >defined (Note to myself: add "distance calculation" to the draft?) Say you make a application/geo type with the same syntax and semantics as the proposed scheme. Then it seems you can just do that using e.g. data:application/geo,... <-> data:application/geo,... Other than the additional level of indirection I can see no difference. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ Uri-review mailing list Uri-review@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
- [Uri-review] early draft of a "geo:" URI scheme. Alexander Mayrhofer
- [Uri-review] Re: early draft of a "geo:" URI sche… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Uri-review] Re: early draft of a "geo:" URI … Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [Uri-review] Re: early draft of a "geo:" URI … Bjoern Hoehrmann
- [Uri-review] Re: early draft of a "geo:" URI sche… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Uri-review] early draft of a "geo:" URI sche… Martin Duerst
- Re: [Uri-review] early draft of a "geo:" URI sche… Bjoern Hoehrmann