[Geojson] Solution for collection and member "type"

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:52:03PM -0600, Sean Gillies wrote:
> Features and FeatureCollections do not need a "type" member. Instances 
> of these objects can be differentiated from objects of other kinds 
> (including Geometries) entirely by
> 
> A) context: Geometries are contained by Features which are contained by 
> FeatureCollections;
> B) or by inspection: Features have a "geometry" member, 
> FeatureCollections do not.

I do not like this. The reason to have type is simply to avoid this
neccesity for context. Take the type value from the object, and dispatch
to a function of the same name. I agree with your evaluation -- I just
disagree with the conclusion that 'inference is good enough'.  

> Applications may opt to add "type" members to objects for convenience, 
> but it should not be mandatory. Comments?

I agree with some conversation on the IRC channel that it should be all
or nothing, as far as the spec is concerned. I just think it should be
all.

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta