[georss] Commas and radius in the spec.

[Ron Lake]

Hi,

 

Just a bit of history from the GML perspective.  We started with comma
separated coordinates because we started before XML Schema.  At one
point we tried to use the encoding also to allow string valued
coordinates - but this adds both data volume and processing complexity.
If there is no need for string valued coordinates (and I would like to
see the justification), the use of double lists seems preferable.


Ron

 

________________________________

From: georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org
[mailto:georss-bounces at lists.eogeo.org] On Behalf Of Stefan F. Keller
Sent: July 17, 2006 10:21 AM
To: georss at lists.eogeo.org
Subject: Re: [georss] Commas and radius in the spec.

 

@1. Actually, there was quite some discussion in the past with good
arguments - also from my side - against using whitespaces and I'm
thankful for the current synthesis - its far more human readable, easier
amenable to pretty printing (just to remind: now, with whitespaces as
main separators we abandoned a possible upward compatibility for 3D
coords). 

 

GML (3.1? future 3.2??) per se is no argument on its own. But to
complete the argument list, I heard in the meantime another point
against commas: Some say that if only whitespaces are used, then it's a
generic XML schema datatype. Question is (if this is true), if we want
it to be (also) an generic XML schema datatype. 

 

So again: It was not my intention to abandon the comma here; I wanted to
clarify it!

@2: Commas *must* no be used like this "<georss:line>45,256..." and
nevver have been allowed, that's clear. Just wanted to remind.

-- Stefan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/georss/attachments/20060717/1ac292e6/attachment.html