[GeoJSON] Future plans for GeoJSON

[Stefan Drees]

Dear all,

first of all: thank you to those, that invested their time and work over 
the last years in providing the GeoJSON specification as it currently 
stands.

As I read from the current version [1] "The GeoJSON format specification 
is the product of discussion on the GeoJSON list" (Appendix B. 
Contributors) so I address my request to this list.

If there is any better or more apropriate means to approach the authors 
listed on the current version in the following regard I would love to be 
adviced.

As a "pythonista" I additionally appreciate the apparent spirit of that 
specification as coined by Howard Butler "GeoJSON is successful because 
it sticks to its core principles. Constraint over flexibility. Web over 
Geo/GIS. [...]" (citing his mail from Fri Apr 12 08:58:32 PDT 2013 and 
dcumented at [2]).

In my own daily work environment and with python I do use it 
occasionally in client projects and through the geojson package.

I also understand, that there is some "traction GeoJSON has gained in 
the market" (citing Howard Butler again at [2]) over the last years.

Are there any plans to further progress GeoJSON, that is to submit the 
specification in the version specified at [1] in Version 1.0 (16 June 
2008) "in direction of a standards body" like say submitting it as RFC 
to IETF? It looks a lot like being written already in IETF RFC format ;-)

This submission may be a lot of additional work, I confess, but at least 
IMO the gained  benefit over the years would be huge for the whole 
community, as GeoJSON then may be referenced normatively and thus be 
really used inside standards for the Web that need to de-/serialize 
geometric or geographic entities in an interoperable way.

As of now, JSON itself may be normatively referenced via [3]. That is a 
real benefit for many. Although the RFC itself is placed only inside the 
Informational category and is not an "internet standard of any kind", 
simply mediated through the "trusted" hosting by ietf this alone already 
makes JSON a "first class citizen" for others to be referenced in a 
stable manner. Which avoids copying the needed content in every 
specification using JSON as format.

What do you think and where might help aiding in such a progression 
would be appreciated?
I hereby offer my support in formal editing etc.

I imagine that GeoJSON already has come a long way towards individual 
rfc submission (as defined in [4]). I hereby kindly offer my help in 
going together the last steps needed.

Thanks a lot for spending time reading this message.

References:

[1]: http://geojson.org/geojson-spec.html
[2]: 
http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/2013-April/000707.html
[3]: Crockford, D., “The application/json Media Type for JavaScript 
Object Notation (JSON)”, RFC 4627, July 2006. 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627.
[4]: http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

All the best,
Stefan.