[GeoJSON] Aligning implementations

[Sean Gillies]

Tim Schaub wrote:
> Hey-
> 
> Chris Holmes wrote:
>> Ok, I'd like to take a shot at lining up the proto-implementations and 
>> perhaps putting some words down on the wiki.
>>
>> The big open question for me right now is if geometry is a top level 
>> property, as in OpenLayers/PCL at the moment
> 
> ...
> 
>> Or do we want geometry as just one of the properties:
> 
> My thinking:
> 
> What does every feature have?  Some way to be identified (id), some 
> geometry (geometry), and a bunch of other attributes (properties).
> 
> Can you have a feature without geometry?  No, that's silly.
> 
> Can you have a feature without a title?  Of course.  We're talking about 
> the JSON representation of geographic features, not documents.
> 
> Ok, I know that's a bit narrow, but continuing in that same vein - if 
> I'm writing an application that reads GeoJSON, I'm going to make it 
> break if a feature comes in without a geometry.  If a feature comes in 
> without a title or a link, I'll continue on without flinching.  That 
> suggests to me that geometry and title don't belong in the same place 
> (both under properties).
> 
> Of course, all of this only becomes a rule if enough people think in the 
> same way.
> 
> Are things like envelopes and links fundamental components of a 
> geographic feature for others?  Obviously, I see utility in more than 
> what I've proposed - but I think it makes sense to sort out requirements 
> before getting into options.
> 
> Tim

Tim,

If you look closely, I'm no longer proposing that titles and links be 
top-level attributes. I agree with you about a top-level geometry too, 
but was toying with the idea that an envelope might serve a dual purpose.

Sean