[GeoJSON] To GML, or not to GML, that is the question
sgillies at frii.com
Wed Mar 28 07:21:37 PDT 2007
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.
> 2. Encode OGC Simple Features in JSON, learning from, but not
> translating, GML.
> I'm in favour of 2.
> Any other opinions, or options?
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:
and this comment in particular:
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.
More information about the GeoJSON