[Geojson] Draft Version 6 Feature Complete?

Sean Gillies sgillies at frii.com
Wed May 7 11:32:16 PDT 2008

Tim Schaub wrote:
> Sean Gillies wrote:
>> 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,
>> Makes sense to me. I think the smaller and tighter the spec, the better.
>> I'm in favor of restructured text.
> +1 as well.
> Tim

Okay, how about this doc?


There's an HTML version at


Check out section 3.3.5, I'd like +/- votes on moving bounding box up
from the examples into its own section as we are already doing for the
optional "id" member.


A cc-by license didn't seem to make any sense without an author(s) or
editor(s), so I made myself editor. Anybody else?


More information about the GeoJSON mailing list