Comments for The "geo:" URI scheme http://geouri.org a Uniform Resource Identifier for geographic locations Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:59:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on “geo:” and vCards by Alex http://geouri.org/2010/06/10/geo-and-vcards/comment-page-1/#comment-6292 Alex Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:59:57 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=42#comment-6292 Note that the GEOPRIV working group has not specifically endorsed "off earth" CRSes - their scope is definitely "on-earth". Note that the GEOPRIV working group has not specifically endorsed “off earth” CRSes – their scope is definitely “on-earth”.

]]> Comment on “geo:” and vCards by Andy Mabbett http://geouri.org/2010/06/10/geo-and-vcards/comment-page-1/#comment-6291 Andy Mabbett Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:30:53 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=42#comment-6291 Although geo URIs can specify non-WGS84 coordinates reference systems (once defined), including those for off-Earth bodies, there is no equivalent field in the ADR (address), so the former will, but the latter will not, be usable to refer to locations on, say, the Moon. Although geo URIs can specify non-WGS84 coordinates reference systems (once defined), including those for off-Earth bodies, there is no equivalent field in the ADR (address), so the former will, but the latter will not, be usable to refer to locations on, say, the Moon.

]]> Comment on “geo:” and vCards by Andy Mabbett http://geouri.org/2010/06/10/geo-and-vcards/comment-page-1/#comment-6285 Andy Mabbett Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:35:25 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=42#comment-6285 …and will the hCard/ Geo microformats: http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard http://microformats.org/wiki/geo both based on vCard, follow suit? …and will the hCard/ Geo microformats:

http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard

http://microformats.org/wiki/geo

both based on vCard, follow suit?

]]> Comment on RFC 5870: “A Uniform Resource Identifier for Geographic Locations” by Andy Mabbett http://geouri.org/2010/06/07/rfc-5870-geo-uri/comment-page-1/#comment-6284 Andy Mabbett Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:03:53 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=29#comment-6284 Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_URI Please feel free to improve it! Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_URI

Please feel free to improve it!

]]> Comment on Firefox extension handles “geo:” URI by Andy Mabbett http://geouri.org/2007/02/26/firefox-extension-handles-geo-uri/comment-page-1/#comment-6283 Andy Mabbett Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:41:33 +0000 http://geouri.org/2007/02/26/firefox-extension-handles-geo-uri/#comment-6283 Better late than never: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_URI Please feel free to improve it! Better late than never: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_URI

Please feel free to improve it!

]]> Comment on RFC 5870: “A Uniform Resource Identifier for Geographic Locations” by alex http://geouri.org/2010/06/07/rfc-5870-geo-uri/comment-page-1/#comment-6281 alex Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:37:02 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=29#comment-6281 Stéphane, yes, i plan to do so. I will actually re-implement it from scratch when i have time. Unless someone else does integrate support for the URI scheme into Firefox' main source ;-) Stéphane,

yes, i plan to do so. I will actually re-implement it from scratch when i have time. Unless someone else does integrate support for the URI scheme into Firefox’ main source ;-)

]]> Comment on RFC 5870: “A Uniform Resource Identifier for Geographic Locations” by Stéphane Bortzmeyer http://geouri.org/2010/06/07/rfc-5870-geo-uri/comment-page-1/#comment-6280 Stéphane Bortzmeyer Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:29:41 +0000 http://geouri.org/?p=29#comment-6280 Do you plan to upgrade the Firefox extension,which no longer works with recent (3.0.6) Firefoxes? Do you plan to upgrade the Firefox extension,which no longer works with recent (3.0.6) Firefoxes?

]]> Comment on “geo:” Specification is Approved in the IETF 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.

]]> Comment on “geo:” Specification is Approved in the IETF 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.

]]> Comment on “geo:” Specification is Approved 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?

]]>