On Jan 17, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I have only had a brief look at this document but I'd like to second
some of the concerns raised so far.
1) If locations can be registered on a fcfs basis we can expect
receivers to see locations that they are unfamiliar with. As such,
we need to do better about internationalization for locations. It
is not good enough to treat locations as identifiers that are not
displayed to a user if receivers are often going to run into
locations.
Not that I fully understand your concern, but would you want expert
review of new additions?
2) Many of the definitions seem arbitrary. club vs bar vs cafe vs
restaurant as an example.
Do you have a suggestion about how this can be less arbitrary?
3) The fact that some entries describe holonym relations without any
defined structure to deal with this is at least concerning.
Maybe this can be remedied with some guidelines as to what
constitutes a reasonable entry. I'm not sure if that is possible,
but it certainly seems like "car" would be a useful entry as opposed
to "seat" which would both be valid if somebody were riding in a seat
in a car.
-andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf