[GeoJSON] namespaces

[Erik Wilde]

hello stefan.

On 2013-05-19 09:34 , Stefan Drees wrote:
>> more on this in the "processing model" follow-up, since you wanted to
>> break up the thread. i do feel that these two issues have a lot in
>> common, however.
> Ok. But regardless of their relation: in the end including any or both
> of the aspects "namespacing" and "processing expectations" might hamper
> a fast and clear submission of a GeoJSON I-D. Right?

well, it depends. namespaces are tricky to get right, and i am pretty 
sure that the GeoJSON group does not want to get into the business of 
creating the namespace standard for JSON. and since there is no 
established standard for it, all that could be done would be to document 
current use, and stick with that.

for the processing model, however, i don't think that it takes a lot of 
extra effort to include this. it simply means making explicit what's 
already implicit (it seems) for most people reading/implementing the 
spec. having a well-defined processing model is one of the key 
requirements for a well-defined media type, in particular when it's one 
that is open and thus is capable of carrying extensions.

cheers,

dret.