[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  
>>>> think
>>>> the specification language is as solid as it's ever going to be.
>>>> I'm +1 on calling Draftv6 final.
>>>> Regards,
>>> 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
>> that section would be frozen as plain text or flat HTML markup, and  
>> that
>> we could then develop around that.
>> Does that make sense? Do we want to use rst for that?
>> Regards,
>> -- 
>> Christopher Schmidt
>> MetaCarta
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geojson mailing list
>> Geojson at lists.geojson.org
>> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-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 mailing list