Re: full integrity?

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu May 23 2002 - 17:39:45 EDT

I would imagine that most protocols that carry geopriv information will
be capable of carrying multiple objects of the same type. Examples:
822-like headers or MIME bodies. Since you may have different policy
embedded for each location, you end up replicating the whole thing
anyway, to be fully general. Thus, this seems like something best left
to the "transport" mechanism. If the thingie-to-be is XML, having
multiple top-level tags is just a DTD or schema matter. In general, I
don't think this is a major constraint. Usually, adding "one more" at
any level of the hierarchy isn't that hard unless you have to try to
express complicated relationships between the items.

Randall Gellens wrote:

>
> If I do want the service, and if I need to provide location within some
> minimum accuracy in order to get it, one possible approach is to say
> "OK, here are x locations as accurate as you wanted. Give me the
> service for all x."
>
> As others have pointed out, providing this capability naturally adds
> some measure of complexity to our object(s). As a general principle,
> simpler, less capable, and fewer options are better. As long as it
> isn't too simple and too incapable to be useful. So the question
> remains: is this capability required?
Received on Thu May 23 17:43:41 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:23 EST