On 25/06/2007, at 7:20 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
I will concede that for folks coming from a GIS background, your
wish seems
bizarre and not something I would ever think to explicitly support
in a format.
But I don't see this as a standards problem, so much as as a viewpoint
difference based on different approaches and backgrounds.
If I may be incredibly arrogant, I would say that the GIS crowd have
the real problem and they are the ones that need to update their
approach.
The GIS crowd have been hammering at this problem for decades, and
they're not really getting anywhere. The formats and standards used
to represent data must accommodate the limitations of computers, so
that the ideas of representing reality can be realised despite the
imperfections of our tools.
I note that you're the president of "OSGeo", which is a name I
vaguely recognise. Therefore I'm going to ask you... how are you
going to update GML so that it has the features required to be more
useful to a larger range of implementers, not just arranged in ways
that GIS people would like?
The default option is what is happening now... people just don't
bother with the standards and hack up code that just does it... and
then the new standards come from the working code, and GML is
history. VRML was very big in its day, but it also failed to provide
relevant access paths.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
