Hi,
I can see how a rename will enable folks to say "GeoJSON" and have that
refer to the specification - however imho, people usually refer to
specifications with a prefix; "spec".
examples:
"The GeoJSON spec[ification] says..."
"The GeoJSON python lib allows"
Rename does seem sensible to allow for other implementations.
Of the sensible names suggested,
"geojsonref" (lowercase) looks good to me - if it is indeed this it to
be/become the reference implementation (what qualifies something to be the
reference implementation?)
If it's deemed to be, then "geojsonref" (lowercase) looks good.
If not, then perhaps "WorldGSON", "WorldJSON" ?
Personally, I dislike having "Py" in a python package name, seems kinda
redundent.
My two pence...
Matt
2008/4/28 Sean Gillies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It is "the" reference implementation of the geo interface, but only one
> implementation of GeoJSON. I could live with PyGeoJSON, but would it be
> as fun as "Pygeon" or "GeoSON"?
>
>
> Eric Lemoine wrote:
> > Ref as reference implementation? Is this project really the GeoJSON
> > reference impl (open question)? If not i think i'd like PyGeoJSON
> > better. My two cents. Eric
> >
> > 2008/4/28, Sean Gillies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I think the "geojson" package name is fine, but we'd invite less
> >> confusion with the GeoJSON format specification effort and the spec
> >> document itself if we changed our project name to something like
> >> "GeoJSONRef". Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Sean
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>
--
Cheers,
Matt
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
