On 16/12/2006, at 3:11 PM, Raj Singh wrote:
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.
I start to understand why geolocated data didn't take off 10 years
ago. Let me be brutal here... this is a waste of time. You're wasting
your time.
There will never be any community that talks about OGC1.3CRS84 and
agonises over y,x,z vs x,y,z. This is firmly in the realms of navel
gazing.
You need to read and understand the lessons of the following:
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
The standards need to have nice names, be easy to understand, and it
doesn't matter if it misses out a bit here or there. The best you can
do is to build in a way of moving from the current format to a future
format.
Trying to design a standard that covers all needs will end up with a
bucket of vomit that contains every ingredient but nobody wants it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
