[GeoJSON] GeoJSON Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3

[Stefan Drees]

On 2014-04-03 20:07 +01:00, Allan Doyle wrote:
> It doesn't make sense to mess with GeoJSON at this point. It's a
> success. We should digitally sign it and throw away the keys to prevent
> our future selves from killing it.

+1 from my side, as GeoJSON shines through simplicity, ... and formats 
derive from form, don't they?


> Proposed changes that are backwards compatible could be documented
> as an add-on and would not need be incorporated into the current
> spec.

I am also fully aligned with that statement.

All the best,
Stefan.

> 	Allan
>
> On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Howard Butler <howard at hobu.co>
>   wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Jeff Yutzler <jeffy at imagemattersllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would be interested in hearing from the other GeoJSON contributors. If temporal support is in fact a non-starter for GeoJSON, perhaps a separate initiative should be established for the purpose. It would be disappointing for time to be considered "out of scope" for this group but IMHO the Wild-West status quo is worse.
>>
>> I have no strong opinion either way, but I would ask those clamoring for time support in GeoJSON to make a strong case about why it is in scope for GeoJSON. The problem of encoding time in JSON would seem to exist in a plethora of domains other than Geo. What makes it the mixing of time in GeoJSON compelling enough to place the burden of it on all implementors of GeoJSON?
>>
>> My inner lazy ass would like to just point people at something that's already done, widely accepted, and frequently implemented and say "use that". Why can't that scenario be true today? Will it be true in some future tomorrow?
>>
>> Howard
>> _______________________________________________