[Geojson] Draft Version 6 Feature Complete?
Panagiotis (Peter) A. Vretanos
pvretano at cubewerx.com
Fri May 2 07:14:01 PDT 2008
Allan Doyle wrote:
> +1, and maybe the thing to do is write it up in IETF RFC format.
> On May 2, 2008, at 7:21 AM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 10:19:55PM -0600, Sean Gillies wrote:
>>> Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>>>> Is there any reason not to call Version 6 "1.0" and start doing work
>>>> around documenting it, seting up examples, prettifying it, etc.? I
>>>> the specification language is as solid as it's ever going to be.
>>>> I'm +1 on calling Draftv6 final.
>>> I'd prefer that a not wiki text version be the normative one.
>> The only section that I consider normative is the 'Specification'
>> section: everything else is simply informative. My plan was always
>> that section would be frozen as plain text or flat HTML markup, and
>> we could then develop around that.
>> Does that make sense? Do we want to use rst for that?
>> Christopher Schmidt
>> Geojson mailing list
>> Geojson at lists.geojson.org
I'm not an author of the spec but have been following it closely and
updating my WFS implementation to match ...
I think it is good to go.
The IETF RFC idea sound good too!
Panagiotis (Peter) A. Vretanos CubeWerx Inc.
Big Kahuna (Senior Database Developer) http://www.cubewerx.com
Tel. 416-701-1985 Fax. 416-701-9870 pvretano at cubewerx.com
"If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light,
and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?" --Stephen Wright
More information about the GeoJSON