[GeoJSON] Point as list of one point, or list of coords

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 06:02:45PM -0400, Allan Doyle wrote:
> 
> On Apr 13, 2007, at 17:34, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 04:47:56PM -0400, Allan Doyle wrote:
> >> I could get behind different levels of geojson. In fact, it seems to
> >> me that if we define it right, people can choose which specific
> >> geometry types they support. If you're going to write a "red dot" app
> >> that only needs points, why bother implementing all the rest? Better
> >> that you feel comfortable using GeoJSON Point objects than feel like
> >> you need to invent yet another representation.
> >>
> >> Of if you're only dealing with GPS tracks, maybe you want Points and
> >> LineStrings, etc.
> >>
> >> GeoJSON - "the Chinese Menu of geo formats."
> >
> > Testing conformance then becomes a problem of O(numgeoms) rather than
> > O(2).
> >
> > The biggest problem for GeoRSS adoption was lack of validation and  
> > clear
> > specification. If you don't want to support GeoJSON simple, don't: but
> > just don't claim you're conformant to GeoJSON. Explain what you  
> > actually
> > are.
> 
> Having batted this around on IRC, I think what we can do is this
> 
> (a) any consumer or producer is free to implement any subset of the spec
> (b) any subset that is implemented must follow the spec defining each  
> element of that subset
> (c) we define at least two "packages" of conformance:
> 
>    1. "Simple" - meaning you implement Point, LineString, Polygon, (?)
>    2. "Complete" - meaning you implement everything.
> 
> (The actual list and names are open for discussion).
> 
> I feel quite strongly that we should not require anyone to use more  
> than he/she needs. At the same time, I understand the desire to group  
> things under an easy to remember name. If the names are just "macros"  
> or "shorthand" for groups, we can satisfy both views.

Agreed.

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta