Hi Yonik:
>
> If you're forced to declare the namespace / put the URI, I'm just
> afraid of what clients / XML parsers out there may start trying to
> validate by default.
And even if they did, it's valid XML so what's the problem?
> And I'm still trying to figure out what we gain.
* plugging into other standard GIS tools
(here's a list of georss ones:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&fkt=1998&fsdt=4214&q=georss+readers&a
q=f&aqi=g1&oq=&fp=b36c7832dbb01be6
)
* understanding that a <point is not a <solr:point (which in your examples
you're using a ',' to separate them while e.g., georss suggests a ' ') but a
georss:point. From this you can:
- look up the field definition
- generate default values
- understand the unit restrictions
There is a wealth of work in XML schema so I'm not sure I have to justify
its use.
> If one does want validation, it seems like we should have an
> (optional) schema for the XML response as a whole?
I'm happy to provide this, for validation, but let's start small, then grow
big. SOLR-1586 does _not_ break anything.
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [email protected]
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
