I didn't know the address standards exists. Nice!!  Thanks

On Mar 24, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Andrew Hayward <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In badgeExtensions-schema/schema-location-v0.5.json:
> 
> > +          "type": "array",
> > +          "items": {
> > +            "type": "object",
> > +            "properties": {
> > +              "street_address": {"type": "string"},
> > +              "city": {"type": "string"},
> > +              "state_province": {"type": "string"},
> > +              "zip_postal_code": {"type": "string"},
> > +              "country": {"type": "string"},
> > +              "geo_location": {
> > +                "description": "Geographic coordinates of the opportunity",
> > +                "$ref": "http://json-schema.org/geo"
> > +              }
> > +            }
> > +          }
> > +        }
> @kayaelle - as I've defined it, online can either be a URI, or an array of URIs, and physical can either be an object containing an address and/or a geo location, or an array of said items. So I think we're in agreement.
> 
> As regards the existing standards, I was just suggesting we use address, which would be an address object as per http://json-schema.org/address, and geo, which would be a geographical object as per http://json-schema.org/geo, rather than @ottonomy's version. Definitely not suggesting that we only use geographical coordinates - just that we don't define our own address format when there's a standard out there already.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
>