Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Pull some plugs, remove unused references and intermediate notes and minor edits #10

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

sthagen
Copy link
Member

@sthagen sthagen commented May 20, 2013

...removing all crs references (and crsURN), cleaning up the now unused references, changed security considerations (aligned with JSON patch RFC as role model), updated date to May 2013, minor reformat to stay within line length.

EDIT: Also edited the Polygon definition section for readability.

…s, removing all crs references (and crsURN), cleaning up the now unsued references, changed security considerations (aligned with JSON patch RFC as role model), updated date to May 2013, minor reformat to stay within line length.
@tschaub
Copy link
Member

tschaub commented May 21, 2013

See also #6.

In that branch, I leave a section on crs, as I do think it warrants some discussion. Perhaps not in its own section, but we do need some mention of the crs for goemetries. In your branch, the bbox still says it is in the same crs as the associated object, but there is no other description of what the default crs is.

I'm in favor of merging #6 or continuing to make changes to sdrees:master (there is some benefit to working on specific edits in specific branches so changes don't get conflated).

@sthagen
Copy link
Member Author

sthagen commented May 21, 2013

I am often passionate, but not about this topic ;-) I mean #10 or (#6 and #10) as long as someone else handles the merge conflicts and we can continue to work on the final coordinate reference and GeoJSON statements based on a clean slate.

I understand, that you already have some of these statements in your patch, so you might be the predestined merge-manager in this case :-) and had your proposal already placed inside the document. Right?

The most important goal at that point for me, is to have some common place, where we people discussing the final mods may take a look, put in the small changes and present pull requests based on that which are easily evaluated or you and other members (as I will not be there this time) do this in Minneapolis on shared screens or paper and vis-a-vis.

So a delegating +1+1 from me ...

@sthagen sthagen mentioned this pull request May 21, 2013
…ger the new GeoJSON display rendering on github
sgillies added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 5, 2014
Consolidation of a few paragraphs, elimination of usused defs (see #9),
removal of discussion notes (see #10). Text width set to 72 chars to
roughly match the text output.

Added: specification that optional altitude is meters above the WGS 84
reference ellipsoid, something to be discussed and affirmed or
removed.
@sgillies
Copy link
Contributor

sgillies commented Jan 5, 2014

This pull request is obsolete.

@sgillies sgillies closed this Jan 5, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants