I'm on board with that too. So IP would be:
<iq from='ham...@shakespeare.lit/phone'
id='q02'
to='location.shakespear.lit'
type='get'
xml:lang='en-US'>
<locationquery xmlns='urn:xmpp:locationquery:0'>
<beacon>
<id>208.99.11.22</id>
<type>ip</type>
</beacon>
</locationquery>
<iq>
-----Original Message-----
From: standards-boun...@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Simon Tennant
Sent: 01/27/2009 9:20 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0255 (Location Query)
Helge Timenes wrote:
> That is a good idea. And also brings up an already asked question.
> Would it be better to de-generalize the <beacon> element into explicit
> <cell>, <wifi>, <bluetooth>, and as suggested, <ip> elements?
>
> Pros/cons anyone?
We will soon have WiMAX and then LTE-type cell-ids and... So let's not paint
ourselves into a corner by presuming that all beacon types are accounted
for.
Please don't de-generalise. "type=" works well for this. IP is just
another type of beacon.
S.
--
Simon Tennant
Buddycloud
uk: +44 20 7043 6756 de: +49 89 420 955 854
uk: +44 78 5335 6047 de: +49 17 8545 0880
email and xmpp: si...@buddycloud.com
