[GeoJSON] Removing CRS from GeoJSON

[Stefan Drees]

On 2013-05-15 20:03, Allan Doyle wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Tim Schaub ... wrote:
>
>> Yes, the suggestion to remove the "crs" member is a backwards
>> incompatible change (it means one and only one CRS for GeoJSON).  As
>> far as I can tell, the suggestion to add the "crsURN" member is also
>> backwards incompatible (there was no mention of the old "crs" member
>> in the updated spec).
>>
>
> crsURN was not really discussed earlier, I don't think it would be a
> good thing to do.
> ...

crs and bbox are optional members of a GeoJSON object, so dropping the 
member crs is one possible change that of course forces consumers to 
switch to default CRS interpretation. That has been discussed since 
April a bit.

the names first "crsRef" and second "crsURN" were created to better 
reflect the ideas on the list, to only reference (that is pure 
delecation) and to make clear, that this is not the good old crs object 
anymore.

Changing the semantics of the value for a member but leaving the key 
unchanged that is what I would consider really breaking older behavior.

The new names are just suggestions, for the scenario, where such a 
"pointing-only" concept needs a "home" inside the JSON object.

All the best,

Stefan.