[Geojson] Outstanding Issues?

[Raj Singh]

I made this exact argument at our last meeting in September.  
Surprisingly, there wasn't a big up-swell of support--more of a dead  
quiet room. There are some minor problems with this, like conversion  
from OGC to ISO when we cross-standardize, but our biggest concern is  
pushback from our main document authors. Since most of the writing  
work is volunteer, we don't want to do anything that turns off the  
people that spend hours writing these things.

I see that a few of our main editors are on this list, so if you  
support XHTML format for documents, let me know!
---
Raj


On Oct 22, 2007, at 12:17 AM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:

>  * Publishing specs such that they are sharable and addressable on the
>    web. (This means 'not-PDF'.) See:
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/text.html#GlyphOrientation
>       "10.7.3 Glyph orientation within a text run - Text - SVG 1.1"
>
>    If this were the case, then rather than linking to the overall SF
>    spec, GeoJSON could link to the specific section we're referring to
>    with geometry implementations. Additionally, it would have  
> solved the
>    problem of me not knowing what the heck people keep talking about
>    when they quote random chunks of numbers out of OGC documents at me
>    :)
>
> Although I think I'm at the point where I'm willing to just let the
> argument go as far as linking to it from the GeoJSON spec, I think  
> that
> if OGC really wants to address the web, it needs to at least start
> behaving more web-like. (It's possible that OGC has no intention of
> addressing the web. I think that would be a mistake, but it's  
> possible.
> In that case, these comments are well-intentioned, but irrelevant.)