> becomes available for the use in the geo: URIs.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, only if the definition of the CRS is
crystal clear about everything that is required for URI semantics (see
definitions of WGS-84 in the document).
Another issue that bothers me is that the sheer number of defined CRSes
would almost make it impossible to support all those CRSes - which would
probably hurt interopability.
Does anybody else have an opinion about this?
Alex
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
