[Standards] Standards Digest, Vol 69, Issue 17

Jason jeacott at hardlight.com.au
Thu Aug 27 11:21:13 UTC 2009


> You should probably re-read the spec: all the fields are optional.  You
> can also provide a time, a uri and you have text and description fields
> at your disposition if the other ones are too restrictive.

true you can provide a time and a uri, but neither are documented with 
any intent to BE a location. They are strictly ancillary data. I guess 
they could be kludged to represent the wrong thing in a closed private 
system but that doesnt sound like a good idea.

> I understand that this was strictly designed with Earth locations in
> mind though. :)

indeed - this is also a problem. the spec should take into account non 
Earth based locations, as well as virtual locations (in virtual online 
worlds, and websites etc), or custom concepts of location. Basically 
anything modern English useage allows us to say we are somewhere - see u 
on myspace/facebook/someBarInSecondLife etc.

Cheers.


> 
> Pierre-Luc
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 197 bytes
> Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
> URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20090825/d2f18996/attachment-0001.pgp>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:14:48 +0200
> From: Florian Zeitz <florian.zeitz at gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Adding countrycode to XEP-0080: User Location
> To: jeacott at hardlight.com.au, XMPP Standards <standards at xmpp.org>
> Message-ID: <4A948C88.8030707 at gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Jason wrote:
>> For my current useage this spec is too limiting to physical locations.
>> parts of related specs allow for location types that are not
>> representable by "country/gps etc", things like URLs, or TIME. (you can
>> be conceptually @ a web location, time, or some other unknown, perhaps
>> virtual representation of location), it would be nice if this spec were
>> flexible enough to accomodate such notions.
>>
> 
> Can you possibly explain in more detail what your current usage is?
> I personally think there is merrit in having this namespace/XEP
> specifically bound to physical location. For websites your currently
> browsing there is User Browsing and there is also XEP 0202 for getting
> an entities time (although I don't know how that fits in the context of
> locations).




More information about the Standards mailing list