Bruce Bannerman [1] >> Your spreadsheet[2] comparison shows a lot of potential, but I can see that >> will take a lot of effort to keep it current.
Markus Neteler[3] > to my knowledge the effort is stalled. In my view the maintenance of this > table is a perfect task for OSGeo :-) +1. I suspect (YMMV) the table would be more maintainable if it was first 1. translated into a lightweight markup that (of course :-) supports tables. Candidates include one of the markdown extensions[4], MediaWiki, and reStructuredText. 2. version-controlled in an online repository. I would also urge OSGeo to try to get third-party input (e.g., GIS Geography[5], folks from some of the GIS curriculum bodies) into the evaluation/maintenance process to inhibit (to paraphrase) unduly preferring the taste of our own koolaid. FWIW, Tom Roche <tom_ro...@pobox.com> [1]: https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-May/016128.html [2]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nNEtjWBROepTzGgTjZ8PslWyv7z_QqzgF1uRSm-0at0/edit?usp=sharing&authkey=CPGQ26EG [3]: https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-May/016129.html [4]: Native markdown does not support tables directly (except via native HTML), but extensions that support tables include GFM, Markdown Extra, and MultiMarkdown. [5]: http://gisgeography.com/qgis-arcgis-differences/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
