OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [emergency] Re: Circle and Polygon

While I am not personally acquainted with him, 
Mr. Ianella is a TC member and has made very sharp 
contributions to the TC work by my observation.

1. Regional data sharing systems developers cope 
with legacy systems everyday.  WGS84 meets the 
needs of the majority, but minorities are also 
served by emergency systems.  Please respond 
to the requirement to enable alternative CRSs 
as needed.
2. Avoiding XML attributes is technically unsupported. 

The first item is a requirement; the second, a means.
The choice of means is a choice of the TC.  IMO, the  
best choice is one that is technically reasonable and  
supports the requirements of the members regards their 
local communities and the need for fast implementation.

I bristle when accusations are made that North 
American opinions dominate OASIS designs; yet I am 
more disturbed when member credentials are 
questioned and their reasonable requirements are 
dismissed as hypothesis.  It makes the accuser's case 
and is itself, a position without merit.


From: Art Botterell [mailto: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  

> 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.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]