Let me try to clarify. There's a clear path forward in OGC to specify
WGS84 decimal degrees in X,Y order. It's to use this CRS:
urn:x-ogc:def:crs:OGC:1.3:CRS84
So there's no need for another organization to define one.
Now, the only problem is that so many people have grown accustomed to
thinking EPSG:4326 means X,Y order that we worry about people having
to get used to a different name. I know "urn:x-ogc:def:crs:OGC:
1.3:CRS84" is very long, but that's what happens when people try to
be extremely precise about their meaning. If you just read the above
and starting screaming about the length of the string, a community
could adopt a convention to use "OGC1.3CRS84" to mean the same thing
without losing any precision.
---
Raj
On Dec 15, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
So nobody present at the OGC meeting saw the issue? It's not about
deciding which one is "correct" between x,y, or y,x, or lon,lat, or
lat,lon ... I could not care less as long as pick one and only one
and
go with it. Variable axis order based on SRS code like what has been
introduced in WMS 1.3 is the worst possible situation for
interoperability IMNSHO.
I am missing out on a practical alternative. If I get this right "we"
would need to create a repository with coordinate reference systems
that
go for x,y(,z) and go "our" own way. This will be a stony way so I
propose
in my stylish humble way to stick with 1.1.1 as long as we can and
undercover try to find that new database.
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
