Re: [emergency] CAP-related Comments

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks for the reminder, Eliot,

I confess I did not go back to the spec itself when responding to 
that specific issue, on which I got bogged down in thinking about the 
specifics in Walid's compilation of comments into an issue list. The 
upshot is that there is now one less reason to spend time tweaking 
CAP instead of going forward to making it an official Committee 
Specification candidate for a 30-day public review and formalizing 
the process of collecting comments, listing them for discussion and 
resolution and addressing them in the TC meetings following the 
release of the candidate spec...

Good catch,
Rex

At 5:00 AM -0400 10/18/03, Eliot Christian wrote:
>At 09:09 PM 10/15/2003 -0700, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>[...] On the lat/long issue, I think punting at this point makes 
>>more sense. Noting that referenced specs should be followed 
>>according to the current practice pending comment on the candidate 
>>Committee Specification should be sufficient.
>
>There is no "issue" as the order of latitude and longitude coordinates.
>
>As I pointed out in a note to the Messages SC on September 18, the CAP
>specification includes the "WGS-84 Note" which clearly states:
>
>  "A WGS-84 coordinate value is here represented as a comma-delimited
>   latitude/longitude pair,"
>
>Eliot


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request