[GeoJSON] To GML, or not to GML, that is the question

[Sean Gillies]

Martin Daly wrote:
> We've had some skirting round this issue, but I think that before we get
> too much further (with GeoJSON Features at least) we need to have a
> consensus on what we are trying to achieve.
> 
> The options that I see are:
> 
> 1. Encode GML in JSON, with a reasonably faithful translation between
> XML and JSON.
> 
> or
> 
> 2. Encode OGC Simple Features in JSON, learning from, but not
> translating, GML.
> 
> I'm in favour of 2.
> 
> Any other opinions, or options?
> 
> M

The second is the profitable one.

The wider Web community has been having the same type of discussion for 
a while now. For example, see this post on Sam Ruby's blog:

   http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/15/application-atom-json

and this comment in particular:

http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/15/application-atom-json#c1169241641

Ignore Mark Pilgrim's swipe at RDF, he's otherwise right on the mark 
about XML and JSON. Let's try to learn from the preceding debates and 
not rehash them unnecessarily.

Cheers,
Sean

-- 
Sean Gillies
http://zcologia.com/news