[Standards-JIG] Relation of JEP-0080: User Geolocation andietf-geopriv?

Ralph Meijer jabber.org at ralphm.ik.nu
Tue Jul 6 11:44:55 UTC 2004


On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 12:33:01PM +0200, Heiner Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> yes, I don't like it either. 
> 
> Section 2.2.1 says something about "coordinate reference systems" and
> that from GML 3.0 the "'feature.xsd' GML schema is REQUIRED". This
> sounds more like longitude/latitude. But I admit I don't understand the
> feature.xsd (attached). It seems to be so general that I can not find
> the longitude/latitude aspect. 

I have glanced the GML specification. It is awfully large, and I think
way to complex for what JEP-0080 and JEP-0112 are aimed at. If you really
wanted, you could transform one in the other using XSLT or something.

> I don't get the "coordinate reference systems" part. I don't like it. On
> the other hand, it's not a good idea for an IETF approved IM protocol to
> NOT follow the IETF in pidf-related things. Since Jabber is a strong
> community, maybe it's the time to tell the author (or the IESG) that the
> draft is not good and even not compatible with JEP-0080. After all its a
> request for comments, not yet an RFC. 

First of all, RFC stands for Request for Comments. Second, I don't agree with
you that we have to follow IETF per se. JEPs are not affiliated with the IETF
(we do Jabber, they do XMPP). We have our own goals, and many times the stuff
already there is either too complex or doesn't meet the goals. Of course
we /can/ learn from these other specifications, and possibly provide mappings
between our stuff and the stuff out there (e.g. JEP-0107, User Mood, provides
a mapping between the JEP and how moods are handled in Wireless Village).

Note that this approach doesn't mean that you can't use GML in Jabber
applications. If you need the more complex stuff, go for it. It is still XML
and you can fit it right in some stanza.

Cost vs. Benefit

-- 
Groetjes,

Ralphm



More information about the Standards mailing list