[georss] GeoRSS Simple Features Proposal

[Martin Daly]

> As simple as GML-SF is, my feeling is that it is still too complicated
> for core GeoRSS. My sense from the use cases I have seen so far is
> that use of multi-geometries, inside rings, and other subtlies of
> GML / ISO geometry generally require the client / user to understand
> more about the associated feature type in order to work with them, as
> well as utilize more complex topology processing and indexing. Just
> inserting them into georss:where doesn't do a lot for interoperability
> as far as I can see.
> 
> There is no restriction of course on putting a GML feature into
> something like an Atom entry, either in the <Content> tag or just
> intercalated, as an alternative or addition to a simpler GeorssGML
> geometry. The CGDI Pilot also experimented with a
> georss:FeatureofInterest element (analogous to O&M) to include a full
> (GML-SF0) feature in an Atom entry, in addition to the georss:where
> element.

Simple being simpler than simple is fine by me.
 
I'm not even sure if they are disallowed at the moment in GeoRSS GML,
but they are never mentioned.  They are disallowed in GeoRSS Simple, and
the SF Proposal for GeoRSS Simple does not change this.

Disallowing holes in Simple, but allowing them in GML (as is the case
for GeometryCollection) seems like a reasonable compromise to me.  I see
no rationale in adding everything *except* holes to GML.

M