On 09/18/2012 06:41 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
Hey all,

Have there been any more thoughts on XYZM support? I may be in a position to help fund some of this work in 2013.

I have been negligent enough to not even write about this to the Wiki. I did that now.

It would be good to have somebody get to work with this.

Ari


David

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Ari Jolma <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    On 05/18/2012 08:51 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

        On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Ari
        Jolma<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>  wrote:

            Folks,

            The deadline for 2.0 is at the end of this year:
            http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/milestone/2.0.0

        Ari,

        Lets not take this deadline too seriously.  If it takes
        till summer 2013 for 2.0 that is ok (IMHO).


    Deadlines are usually good ;)

    but I have no problem with this. If it takes longer then it takes
    longer.



            Is the RFC list the best source for what new features are
            planned for it?

            This page is about smaller issues for 2.0:
            http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/GDAL20Changes

            I have an old wish to have full XYZM support in GDAL and
            it would be a good
            candidate to the plan for 2.0 - see also
            http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg13470.html
            Is anybody doing a review of what it would take?

        I believe XYZM support would be a great feature for 2.0 and
        ideally
        would be part of an upgrade to the more recent "simple
        features geometry"
        model that includes various other geometry types.

        I'm not sure who might want to take on this task though.  It isn't
        currently a focus of mine even though I'd like to see it happen.

        We aren't really a Roadmap kind of project, but I welcome
        discussion
        of things we would like to accomplish in 2.0 which is our
        opportunity
        for substantial changes.


    I could do two things:

    Edit the "smaller issues" page to contain also larger issues (as
    the link to it on the main page says).

    Begin a XYZM RFC.

    Ari


        Best regards,


    _______________________________________________
    gdal-dev mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev




--
************************************
David William Bitner

_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

Reply via email to