Comments on: “geo:” Specification is Approved in the IETF http://geouri.org/2010/04/19/geo-specification-is-approved-in-the-ietf/ a Uniform Resource Identifier for geographic locations Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:43:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: PacoBell http://geouri.org/2010/04/19/geo-specification-is-approved-in-the-ietf/comment-page-1/#comment-6273 PacoBell Fri, 21 May 2010 21:37:20 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=16#comment-6273 Thank, Alex. Yeah, I saw something about Google's proprietary query string extension from a message board posting while...googling. It's unfortunate that they decided to roll their own "zoom" parameter as uncertainty sounds much like a better generalized solution. The real downer for me was hearing about the lack of the altitude component. We live in a 3D world and can't always assume the altitude is set to ground level. Then again, most mobile GPS receivers report altitude with an uncertainty of several tens of meters, anyway. This would need to be corrected with a calibrated barometric sensor or, at the very least, some sort of correctional table. Still, I would love see all these wonderful features implemented in a geocaching app some time (I'm looking @ you c:geo!) Congrats on the stable spec and I hope it achieves rapid adoption in the market. Thank, Alex. Yeah, I saw something about Google’s proprietary query string extension from a message board posting while…googling. It’s unfortunate that they decided to roll their own “zoom” parameter as uncertainty sounds much like a better generalized solution. The real downer for me was hearing about the lack of the altitude component. We live in a 3D world and can’t always assume the altitude is set to ground level. Then again, most mobile GPS receivers report altitude with an uncertainty of several tens of meters, anyway. This would need to be corrected with a calibrated barometric sensor or, at the very least, some sort of correctional table. Still, I would love see all these wonderful features implemented in a geocaching app some time (I’m looking @ you c:geo!) Congrats on the stable spec and I hope it achieves rapid adoption in the market.

]]> By: alex http://geouri.org/2010/04/19/geo-specification-is-approved-in-the-ietf/comment-page-1/#comment-6272 alex Fri, 21 May 2010 08:31:14 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=16#comment-6272 Hello PacoBell, the Android implementation was done off a very early version of the spec. Android’s specification is here: http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/g-app-intents.html The basic “geo:longitude,latitude” structure is identical, however, they neither support the altitude component, nor URI parameters (like “u” for uncertainty, and “crs” for alternative coordinate reference systems). On the other hand, they support some proprietory “z” (Zoom) parameter (which is very Google-Maps-centriy, and could be easily calculated from the uncertainty value, btw), and they support query strings, which is not included in the “geo:”, which was never included in the "geo:" URI specification - it was discussed, but decided against in the IETF. Hello PacoBell,

the Android implementation was done off a very early version of the spec. Android’s specification is here:

http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/g-app-intents.html

The basic “geo:longitude,latitude” structure is identical, however, they neither support the altitude component, nor URI parameters (like “u” for uncertainty, and “crs” for alternative coordinate reference systems). On the other hand, they support some proprietory “z” (Zoom) parameter (which is very Google-Maps-centriy, and could be easily calculated from the uncertainty value, btw), and they support query strings, which is not included in the “geo:”, which was never included in the “geo:” URI specification – it was discussed, but decided against in the IETF.

]]> By: PacoBell http://geouri.org/2010/04/19/geo-specification-is-approved-in-the-ietf/comment-page-1/#comment-6270 PacoBell Thu, 20 May 2010 22:38:12 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=16#comment-6270 Just a query about Android's implementation. You mention it's not fully compliant, but are there any "deal-breakers" in their implementation that you know of? Just a query about Android’s implementation. You mention it’s not fully compliant, but are there any “deal-breakers” in their implementation that you know of?

]]> By: Alex http://geouri.org/2010/04/19/geo-specification-is-approved-in-the-ietf/comment-page-1/#comment-6269 Alex Thu, 20 May 2010 11:18:23 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=16#comment-6269 DeeJay, thanks for the information - that's good news. Let me know if you need help with understanding the specification - it should be an RFC in about one or two months. Alex DeeJay,

thanks for the information – that’s good news. Let me know if you need help with understanding the specification – it should be an RFC in about one or two months.

Alex

]]> By: DeeJay1 http://geouri.org/2010/04/19/geo-specification-is-approved-in-the-ietf/comment-page-1/#comment-6268 DeeJay1 Wed, 19 May 2010 20:00:05 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=16#comment-6268 Good to know there are some implementations already. I'm planning to add support for Emerillon and it will probably end up being a glib based library for parsing them, so expect news about it soon ;) Good to know there are some implementations already. I’m planning to add support for Emerillon and it will probably end up being a glib based library for parsing them, so expect news about it soon ;)

]]>