> variety of CRS currently in use. My ``guess'' is that these
> exist on purpose, and not because the parties involved didn't
> reach an agreement. While the intent of the geo: URI scheme is
> to allow for ``a protocol independent, compact and generic way
> to refer to a physical geographic location'', its use for this
> purpose may be hampered by the necessity to perform otherwise
> unnecessary (and wasteful to the computer's resources)
> projection transformations.
As i said a couple of times (and that seems to be what people i talk
about that issue think as well):
- WGS-84 is currently clearly the most predominantly used CRS for
"neogeography"
- If you use it, the "casual user" won't be surprised, and doesn't need
transformations
- The burden of re-projection should be put on the author of an URI
rather than the user
- it's confusing to non-GIS-people
- most internet users are not even aware that there's something like
CRSes.
- A professional that wants to use the data from a geo-URI in a
different CRS certainly
has the software and knowledge to transform it into anything that he
wants
- The introduced "crs" parameter allows for defining other CRSes
(particularly in
cases where something else replaces WGS-84 as the predominantly used
CRS).
> There's no necessity to put everything in a single proposal,
> though.
+1
> AM> The major changes compared to the -01 version are:
>
> AM> - "u" (Uncertainty) URI parameter added
>
> While the current version's definition for uncertainty is
> probably the most unambiguous and simple, I'm in doubt that the
> formulae necessary to, e. g., show the uncertainty defined in
> such a way on a map, are going to be implemented in many
> ``geosimple'' programs anytime soon.
>
> (FWIW, it looks to me like a lot of hassle to handle the `u'
> parameter in my geo-uri.sh script.)
>
> Hopefully an implementation of the necessary computations will
> be available before the wide adoption of the scheme.
I am sure there will be a couple of implementations - i am working on
one currently.
> AM> Comments appreciated.
>
> So far I've spotted some minor issues on wording, punctuation
> and alike (hopefully not false positives), which I'm going to
> enumerate later.
Thanks!
Alex
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
