[Geojson] Draft version 6 in restructured text and HTML

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 05:37:16PM -0600, Tim Schaub wrote:
> Hey-
> 
> Sean Gillies wrote:
> > The only changes I made were 1) a little restructuring to keep the CRS
> > section from going 6 levels deep, 2) change "location" to "geometry" in
> > the blog example.
> > 
> > http://zcologia.com/sgillies/hg/geojson-draft/raw-file/tip/geojson-draft-6.txt
> > http://zcologia.com/sgillies/hg/geojson-draft/raw-file/tip/geojson-draft-6.html
> 
> This looks great Sean.  Thanks for reworking it.
> 
> In an effort to test all ideas before we go final, I'd like to get 
> feedback on one more:
> 
> Instead of:
> 
> "crs": {
>      "type": "name",
>      "properties": object
> }
> 
> and
> 
> "crs": {
>      "type": "link",
>      "properties": object
> }
> 
> What about:
> 
> "crs": {
>      "link": object
> }
> 
> and
> 
> "crs": {
>      "name": string
> }
> 
> ?

Doesn't this go back to the same reason we require type on everything
else? Having switch(obj.type) seems useful to me. Am I wrong here?

Should we go back to discussing whether feature objects need a type?
After all, we can work out what they are by looking at the other
properties.

> If people like that, then there is a second thing to consider:
> 
> whether
> 1) you can specify either a "link" member or a "name" member, or
> 2) you can specify one or more of "link" and "name" (and perhaps others 
> in the future).

Note that there is no reason you can't do thsi under the current spec.
The behavior just isn't defined by the spec -- you can always add other
properties.

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta