[GeoJSON] Future plans for GeoJSON

[Stefan Drees]

On 02.05.13 16:42, Howard Butler wrote:
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies at gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> Other than Mike's election maps, what would break if we made crs
>> an optional string (defaulting to "urn:ogc:def:crs:OGC::CRS84")
>> instead of  a JSON object?
>
> I suspect we'd break a lot of parsers if we did that. I expect it
> would still need to be a JSON object at the very least, but we could
> tighten up the language to say something about really only working for
> 4326 or 3857 data, and anything beyond that, user's are left to meander
> the wilderness themselves.

as suggested in a "parallel" reply, I would expect, that an optional 
JSON object when "decommissioned" would be just removed. If we want to 
have a minimal "signaling" slot like  a fixed string as key, with a say 
RFC 5165 like URN indicating per convention the coordinate reference 
system "meant" in the sibling data of the GeoJSON object, this 
fixed-string key should IMO not be the same, than the one hosting in 
versions before the "whole" crs JSON object.

Slimming down the crs JSON object into some other object (although we 
just want a place to indicate two possible options) looks not very 
convincing to me. Neither in the context of minimizing past parser 
breakage nor in the light of modeling reality with minimal necessary and 
sufficient data structures.

What do you think?

All the best,
Stefan.