BuckyE wrote: > Yes, I've been doing that. Satellite goes up to 23 or so before the > resolution gets too bad to be of further use. Your parser is > definitely way better than the GGeoXml. But the best so far is not > "parsing" at all. Just reading as polygons from an XML. And, I think I > can add some arrays or an array for lines and areas using simple code, > treating the data the same way I treat my existing XML. I should, in > theory, be able to append new text right in the romanholiday.xml file, > right? > Yup, KML pretty useful features
1) the primary usefulness of using KML explicitly is to be able to point multiple clients as in if you want maps.google.com to work with it and Google Earth to work with it and your own api page to work with it and that ESRI gadget to work with it. 2). KML stores styles and you can control what your data looks like. My GeoXml will give random styes if none are present in the data. 3) Google Earth is a pretty easy tool for making it. The tree based sidebar of GeoXml is handy and a pretty elaborate thing to construct rather like encoding of polygons and polylines (when you have large data or even holes inside of polygons). GeoXml handles a lot of formats and you can mix and match with them. Recently one GeoXml user made a translator to modify a Yahoo piped jsonized rss feed so GeoXml would parse it! If GeoXml has way more than you need just parsing the XML yourself is quite viable not everybody wants to think that much about it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
