[Geojson] Outstanding Issues?

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:57:45PM +0100, Martin Daly wrote:
> > I'm out of touch, but I think that:
> > 
> >  http://wiki.geojson.org/GeoJSON_draft_version_5
> > 
> > represents "the will of the people" as best as possible. Are there any
> > outstanding things that need to be fixed before we call this 'final'
> and
> > ship it?
> 
> Add (in Specification)?

Sounds good to me. Any thoughts from others?

OpenLayers won't do this, but I have no problem with others who do, and
having an understanding that other people may not understand your broken
geometries is useful for when someone says "It's broken and I don't know
why!"

Oh, and the other thing was dateline wrapping. I'd like to see a
clear/concise proposal on that sent to the list.

-- Chris

> -----------------------------------
> 5. GeoJSON is intended for use as a software-to-software encoding for
> features and their geometry.  GeoJSON contains no definition of the
> meaning of the geometry constructs, nor any explicit or implicit rules
> on the 'validity' of the encoded geometry (other than that it must be
> encoded as described).  However, for maximum interoperability, it is
> recommended that the encoded geometry follow the definitions and rules
> of the OGC Implementation Specification for Geographic information -
> Simple features access - Part 1: Common architecture
> (http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=18241).
> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> M
> 

-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta