On Jul 14, 6:15 am, bratliff <bratl...@umich.edu> wrote: > On Jul 14, 12:13 am, Ben Appleton <apple...@google.com> wrote: > > > No plans at this point. How would JSON would be any more useful than raw > > KML? Afterall you can load the KML directly into the browser, parsing and > > modifying it as you wish. What JSON schema would we use? > > It would eliminate the proxy requirement.
And that is a pretty direct boon I have a basic php proxy that I let people snag associated with my geoxml parser but its a pain for plenty of folk. JSON is a much more compact > format than KML / XML. well not alot more compact intrinsically but it generally is a little more compact even without too much work (the tag sizes are smaller but they normally compress well due to duplication so the size gain is smaller sometimes than it might seem .... but yes it is real. It is directly executable. It does not > require a separate parsing step. Good particularly on that old dog IE whose xml parsing and handling sucks. Extraneous elements could be > ignored. I like json to contain the folder information too and for me the structure of the kml isn't extraneous it conveys meaning about the data... its one feature kml has over GML in fact the groupings of things can be very significant In general I agree lots of great features and most are the normal ones associated with JSON -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps JavaScript API v3" group. To post to this group, send email to google-maps-js-api...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-js-api-v3+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en.
