RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>]

"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." 

That speaks for itself.  

Renato is asking that legacy systems be supported by a 
system reference flag.  It is a reasonable request that 
we honor every day when customizing our systems for 
customers in response to RFPs.

One can add the flag in their own namespace or 
that of the customer.  This means of proprietary 
extension is reasonable to use when the normative 
specification offers no support.  If a CAP validator 
balks, the validator is wrong.

len


From: Art Botterell [mailto:acb@incident.com]

On Jun 17, 2005, at 6/17/05 1:00 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Please respond to the requirement to enable alternative CRSs
> as needed.

With all due respect, Claude, there's a difference between a  
suggestion and a requirement.  The requirements for CAP and for EDXL  
were considered at some length and adopted by this TC... and  
supporting alternate CRSs isn't among them.  (And we did go over this  
material at some length back during the CAP 1.0 deliberations.)

And I don't think anyone's credentials have been questioned here.   
We've all seen what happens when issue discussions deteriorate into  
ad-hominem, and I hope and believe that we're all making a special  
effort to stick to the facts and leave opinions and speculation about  
other folks' motives to one side.