[GeoJSON] Aligning implementations

[Martin Daly]

> Allan, it may be a free-for-all in the properties attribute, 
> and that would be just fine. Remember, JSON is about simple 
> data structures, not about documents. If an application needs 
> strict semantics and hierarchy, XML is a much better choice.

+1 on simplicity.

I'm concerned that some of what has been discussed over the past few
days is loading every feature with (self-describing) metadata.  If there
is need for such metadata, then wouldn't it be better at the
features/featurecollection level?  Even then, aren't we in danger of
doing XML-in-JSON by devising our own JSON Schema?

If anyone had a bright idea how to do the simple, one geometry per
feature (optionally null), case without precluding multiple geometries
in future, then I would be tempted to go for that first.

M