[GeoJSON] Plug-Pull request to finalize a CRS-free I-D revision

[Stefan Drees]

On 2013-06-14 01:43 CEST, Mike Bostock wrote:
> ...
>
> When handling projected coordinates in the client, I typically don’t
> need to know the projection because I’m displaying the coordinates
> as-is. [2] This is partly why I’ve never implemented a CRS parser for
> D3; I’ve never needed to reproject in the client.

As currently the JSON RFC **itself** is in the process [P] of being 
"updated" to be augmented to the IETF STD track, I read a lot of 
opinions on a similar topic although on a larger scale ;-) What I 
unsurprisingly re-learned [M] up to now is: How hard it is to close a 
"small" hole or two years later, when basically everyone might rely on 
these "features" ...

So as I am more or less only fostering the I-D-ing attempt, I might now 
again be tempted (cf. [A] and other mails in this thread here) to 
conclude, that we keep the crs object as is (to be able to then 
deprecate it and block any conforming GeoJSON object containing a member 
with the same name but a corresponding value with a deviating meaning).

Given that, we then all would be back to: How do we really phrase "the" 
common concerns shared by the geojson community. Some proposals might 
already been sprinkled all over the mail archives of the months April 
and May.

> Also, hello everyone. It’s nice to be here, and thank you for the lovely
> format. :)

welcome also from my side. Very nice you also came to the party :) ... 
and while you're here, please let me tell you, that I **really** enjoy 
using D3 in my own projects for the visualization subtasks.

All the best,
Stefan

References:

[A]: 
http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/2013-June/000792.html
[M]: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/maillist.html
[P]: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/json/
> ...
> [2] http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/5557726