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

Chris Holmes cholmes at openplans.org
Wed Mar 28 07:30:39 PDT 2007

Same here.  +1 on 2.  I do like a more 'object' approach than a bunch of 
arrays, and I do like some of the GML constructs, but I feel a faithful 
reconstruction of it will hamper us greatly.

And in general I don't much like the straight XML -> JSON translations. 
  I think it makes sense to target Simple features initially, get that 
really solid.  Stay away from namespaces and all kinds of complex stuff. 
  Agree on the first iteration.  Then when we all feel happy with that 
we can try to take on other issues.  If people need 'more' they can 
extend the base we're working with.


Allan Doyle wrote:
> -1 on 1.
> +1 on 2.
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 06:40, 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> geojson mailing list
>> geojson at lists.geojson.org
>> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org

Chris Holmes
The Open Planning Project
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cholmes.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20070328/937cfa55/attachment.vcf>

More information about the GeoJSON mailing list