Re: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

On Jun 17, 2005, at 6/17/05 7:59 AM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Why avoid attributes?  That is superstitious behavior.

Whether or not individuals share the theology, that's the choice the  
TC has made, repeatedly.  And I don't think the issue here is large  
enough to justify us going back and re-plowing that old and bloody  
ground.

> If you name it for it's origin, you will add hundreds of elements.
> If you codelist it, you only have to include that and maintain it.

See, this is where trying to compromise gets a guy. ;-)

Look, I remain persuaded that we can and should specify a single  
CRS.  I was merely trying to address a concern about the spec alone  
possibly not being enough to clarify which CRS that is.  I was NOT  
trying to open the door to forcing implementers to support hundreds  
of CRSs.

(At most they should have to deal with two... WGS84 and their  
preferred local CRS.  I suspect the vast majority will continue to  
get along just fine with WGS84 alone.)

Again, I haven't heard any actual implementer report any of this as a  
problem... nor have I heard any technical reason why it should one.   
This whole topic seems to be based on a hypothetical concern for some  
third parties' sensitivities.  Seems like we may be chasing ghosts here.

- Art