[Geojson] Request for comments (Re: Fixing problems in section 4)
sgillies at frii.com
Fri Mar 14 10:36:37 PDT 2008
Sean Gillies wrote:
> Martin Daly wrote:
>> I think that this is indeed an improvement. Is there any way to
>> (slightly) modify it to use the "type" and "properties" sort-of model in
>> other parts of the spec?
>> All you implementers out there,
>> Were this to become the CRS part of 1.0, would it adversely affect you?
>> Or, in other words, any -1's?
> Thanks, Martin. It even has a touch of theory in it :)
> Rename "value" to "properties"? That doesn't feel right to me. I think
> the larger issue (than changing "properties" to "value") is the impact
> on early adopters of discarding the "EPSG", "OGC", and "URL" types in
> draft version 5. We've been instructing GeoJSON processors to switch on
> the value of "type", not on the value of "properties".
Properties might work after all:
More information about the GeoJSON