MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon
While I am not personally acquainted with him,
Mr. Ianella is a TC member and has made very sharp
contributions to the TC work by my observation.
1. Regional data sharing systems developers cope
with legacy systems everyday. WGS84 meets the
needs of the majority, but minorities are also
served by emergency systems. Please respond
to the requirement to enable alternative CRSs
as needed.
2. Avoiding XML attributes is technically unsupported.
The first item is a requirement; the second, a means.
The choice of means is a choice of the TC. IMO, the
best choice is one that is technically reasonable and
supports the requirements of the members regards their
local communities and the need for fast implementation.
I bristle when accusations are made that North
American opinions dominate OASIS designs; yet I am
more disturbed when member credentials are
questioned and their reasonable requirements are
dismissed as hypothesis. It makes the accuser's case
and is itself, a position without merit.
len
From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com]
On Jun 17, 2005, at 6/17/05 7:59 AM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Why avoid attributes? That is superstitious behavior.
Whether or not individuals share the theology, that's the choice the
TC has made, repeatedly. And I don't think the issue here is large
enough to justify us going back and re-plowing that old and bloody
ground.
> If you name it for it's origin, you will add hundreds of elements.
> If you codelist it, you only have to include that and maintain it.
See, this is where trying to compromise gets a guy. ;-)
Look, I remain persuaded that we can and should specify a single
CRS. I was merely trying to address a concern about the spec alone
possibly not being enough to clarify which CRS that is. I was NOT
trying to open the door to forcing implementers to support hundreds
of CRSs.
(At most they should have to deal with two... WGS84 and their
preferred local CRS. I suspect the vast majority will continue to
get along just fine with WGS84 alone.)
Again, I haven't heard any actual implementer report any of this as a
problem... nor have I heard any technical reason why it should one.
This whole topic seems to be based on a hypothetical concern for some
third parties' sensitivities. Seems like we may be chasing ghosts here.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]