|
|
|
@ -34,10 +34,10 @@ extensible event types when available.
|
|
|
|
|
XXX: should description be localised?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
|
|
|
"m.location": {
|
|
|
|
|
"uri": "geo:51.5008,0.1247;u=35",
|
|
|
|
|
"description": "Our destination",
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
"m.location": {
|
|
|
|
|
"uri": "geo:51.5008,0.1247;u=35",
|
|
|
|
|
"description": "Our destination",
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If sharing the location of an object, one would add another subtype (e.g. a
|
|
|
|
@ -54,15 +54,15 @@ Example for sharing a static location:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
"type": "m.location",
|
|
|
|
|
"content": {
|
|
|
|
|
"m.location": {
|
|
|
|
|
"uri": "geo:51.5008,0.1247;u=35",
|
|
|
|
|
"description": "Matthew's whereabouts",
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
"m.ts": 1636829458432,
|
|
|
|
|
"m.text": "Matthew was at geo:51.5008,0.1247;u=35 as of Sat Nov 13 18:50:58 2021"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
"type": "m.location",
|
|
|
|
|
"content": {
|
|
|
|
|
"m.location": {
|
|
|
|
|
"uri": "geo:51.5008,0.1247;u=35",
|
|
|
|
|
"description": "Matthew's whereabouts",
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
"m.ts": 1636829458432,
|
|
|
|
|
"m.text": "Matthew was at geo:51.5008,0.1247;u=35 as of Sat Nov 13 18:50:58 2021"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -74,10 +74,10 @@ annotations than location sharing. It would look something like this if we
|
|
|
|
|
used it:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
|
|
|
"m.geo": {
|
|
|
|
|
"type": "Point",
|
|
|
|
|
"coordinates": [30.0, 10.0]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
"m.geo": {
|
|
|
|
|
"type": "Point",
|
|
|
|
|
"coordinates": [30.0, 10.0]
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another design choice is to represent static shared locations as a normal room
|
|
|
|
|