 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
This thread never seemed to conclude with clear consensus as to whether folks see a need for both these specific location types rather than being able to use a common "civic" locationType. I went back through the threads and the majority of the responses indicated that both of the values should be the same (with Canada being the exception?). Since the thread did diverge somewhat (into how conversions etc. are done), I would like to do a quick query to see if folks are okay with removing those two values from the locationType in the HELD draft?
And, just to be precise, we're proposing changing locationType from a set of {any, civic, geodetic, postalCivic, jurisdictionalCivic, locationURI} to a set of
{any, civic, geodetic, locationURI}.
Regards,
Mary
Editor HELD
*****
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625
_______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv