[Geopriv] Re: Civil-02 ID and PIDF-LO inconsistencies

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Sat Jul 10 2004 - 22:42:12 EDT

James M. Polk wrote:

> I agree it is related. Perhaps the pidf-lo document should only
> reference the civil doc for the chart? In other words, have the civil ID
> be the creator of the chart, and not have it in both documents (fearing
> inconsistency), but have the pidf-lo document reference *to* the chart
> in the civil doc.
>
> I know this is not necessarily optimal, but this is the last week to
> catch this before IETF LC in the pidf-lo doc is completed, so there is
> time to address it now.

Given that both need to define different tags (XML element names in one
case, numeric tags in the other), I think such reference would be
difficult, even leaving timing issues aside. I think we can handle the
synchronization of the documents - the list of elements is small.

Henning

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:42:12 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 10 2004 - 22:50:26 EDT