Ar 05/12/2007 am 13:50, ysgrifennodd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
PIDF-LO is an extension to PIDF, described in RFC 4119.
Its usage for practical purposes (what do you want, it's IETF)
is further clarified by this draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile
It can express
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, it's good enough to cover most of implementations, (if you throw in
altitude and
horizontal/vertical accuracy).
Now the question is, do we want it as special key names in the dictionary,
or a specialized interface (or even GeoClue API infusion) will be a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
ext Dafydd Harries
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:35 PM
To: telepathy@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Telepathy] Rich presence
I was planning to restrict the API to using WGS 84
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
ext Dafydd Harries
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:05 PM
To: telepathy@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Telepathy] Rich presence
Ar 04/12/2007 am 16:51, ysgrifennodd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi
Hi,
I'd like to have a discussion on extended presence support in Telepathy.
In the current spec, there is a freeform map of presence parameters to
arbitrary values, and it's not specified what these parameters and values might
in principle carry, or will there be some parameter names with a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 4:51 PM
To: telepathy@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: [Telepathy] Rich presence
I'd like to have a discussion on extended presence support in
Telepathy.
In the current spec
Hello,
Mikhail Zabaluev:
I'd like to have a discussion on extended presence support in Telepathy.
...
Any ideas?
One question is where the boundary ought to be drawn between extended presence
in telepathy and a tubes-based social networking application. Essentially,
that's the extreme point
