<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi Stefan,<br><br></div>I remain interested in submitting a draft to the IETF and would love help. In fact, it's clear that I need help. I've been squatting on the idea of doing it for some time and am embarrassed to have done nothing much about it. I don't know if you've been through the process before, but I have some friends and mentors that have and am sure of getting good advice.<br>
<br></div>One thing I'd like to consider, either before or during the process, would be to strip out the CRS parts of the specification that get very little use. Specifically, the linked and named CRS types. I've only seen non-long/lat GeoJSON in the wild a couple times (City of Chicago's open data is one) and the producers aren't following the specification with regards to CRS. This suggests to me that those parts of the spec are either broken or superfluous.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Stefan Drees <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stefan@drees.name" target="_blank">stefan@drees.name</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 26.04.13 16:51, Jerry Sievert wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I for one, would be very sad to see GeoJSON go the way of OAuth:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell/" target="_blank">http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/<u></u>oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-<u></u>hell/</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
thanks for the pointer. Lots of interesting comments also.<br>
With respect to the suggested submission target IETF, I'd assume it to be more like the person claiming to be "Julian Reschke" commented: "[...] it is unfair to say that what happened here is what happens throughout the IETF. I’ve seen all kinds of Working Groups, some dysfunctional, some working great but slowly (ahem), some working just right [...]".<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
GeoJSON is clean, flexible, and easy to implement and work with (we use<br>
it as the base commonality in Terraformer -<br>
<a href="https://github.com/esri/Terraformer" target="_blank">https://github.com/esri/<u></u>Terraformer</a>), and I would hate to see a<br>
standards body destroy that.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
cool project. Esp. the AMD capability working with loaders like dojo (I often use) and RequireJS. Another thing to try out ;-)<br>
<br>
I assume, that this pragmatic and clean (through constraints) specification, will remain intact after submission.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Just my 2 cents.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is the clear target and I read this intention (in keeping it this way) as the "declared will of the authors" also in the mails of most members of this community.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
Stefan.<br>
</font></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
<br>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Stefan Drees <<a href="mailto:stefan@drees.name" target="_blank">stefan@drees.name</a><br></div><div><div class="h5">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:stefan@drees.name" target="_blank">stefan@drees.name</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
On 26.04.13 15:51, Howard Butler wrote:<br>
<br>
...<br>
<br>
I think an IETF submission is a nice-to-have rather than a<br>
have-to-have for the GeoJSON community. IIRC, at the time there<br>
was some<br>
discussion about bringing it forward, and it's clear that the IETF<br>
process and format inspired the specification document itself<br>
(this came<br>
from Sean, IIRC). I personally see no problem with it, but I<br>
also don't<br>
have the bandwidth to make it happen. Someone with a strong<br>
desire and<br>
time to shepherd it through the process would need to do that.<br>
It sounds<br>
like you have a strong desire to do so...<br>
<br>
<br>
indeed the GeoJSON community would probably already had undertaken<br>
these steps, if it had been a MUST. I am happy, that you personally<br>
see no problem with submitting to IETF, as I think it would be a<br>
good place for this pragmatic spec.<br>
<br>
I already offered my support in shepherding and hereby add to it,<br>
that I'd really like to make it happen as long it is clear, that I<br>
a) do not expect my name to be added as (if I had been) one of the<br>
editors and claimed any credit I do not want to claim, and b) it is<br>
ok for the authors, that I actually do start the submittal process.<br>
<br>
So what do the others in the community think and how shall I proceed?<br>
<br>
Stefan.<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
GeoJSON mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GeoJSON@lists.geojson.org" target="_blank">GeoJSON@lists.geojson.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org" target="_blank">http://lists.geojson.org/<u></u>listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.<u></u>org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Sean Gillies
</div>