Hi Sean, hmm, -1 on that name for me, mainly because it seems like geojson mispelt. Is there any rationale behind it or is it just dropping the J?
I'm pretty much used to ">>> import geojson", and stuck in my ways :) Since (currently) PCL geojson is based on simplejson, perhaps simplegson or simplegeojson is a good name?. My vote would go to 'simplegeojson', says what it is. But I haven't really got any strong preference for the name. I think it shouldn't be silly. Am quite happy for you/others to decide. Matt 2008/5/7 Sean Gillies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Matt, > > What do you think about "geoson"? Tell me if it's too cute. > > Sean > > Matthew Russell wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >
_______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
