[Geojson] -1 actually (Re: GeoJSON '1.0'?)

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 04:25:50PM -0600, Sean Gillies wrote:
> As I said in another thread: at the very least I believe we need to 1)
> explain how most users can use the default CRS instead of specifying
> "EPSG:4326", and 2) recommend the upcoming OGC URNs over legacy EPSG:n
> identifiers. So I'm -1 on draft version 5 becoming 1.0. I apologize for
> not paying closer attention to the CRS section until this week.

I don't believe OGC URNs offer anything over EPSG identifiers, since
there's no way to resolve them? Either way, it's just an opaque string
that a client has to understand -- except in the case of URNs, fewer 
clients understand them, and there's currently a dichotomy because
the 'current' URN usage is all via x-ogc.  Am I wrong in some of these
points somehow? 

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta