search

geojson / draft-geojson

The GeoJSON Internet-Draft
Other
198 stars 35 forks source link

Change "SHOULD" to "should" in 10.4 #194

Closed tschaub closed 8 years ago

tschaub commented 8 years ago

This follows the suggestions from Alissa Cooper's email. I'll admit I don't understand the nuance here, but am curious to understand.

Note that we still have other RFC2119 key words in the considerations sections (including SHOULD).

sgillies commented 8 years ago

As I said in a response to that email, I'd like to keep SHOULD. There are very few applications that can properly handle features that aren't cut at the anti-meridian.

coopdanger commented 8 years ago

As I said in email, no problem with normative SHOULD, but that should be stated as a generic requirement, not within examples.

sgillies commented 8 years ago

@coopdanger Ah, I think I understand now. I think there are 2 ways to go.

  1. I'll propose on the list that we move the text of 10.5 Interop Considerations/Geometry Collections to 3.1.8 Geometry Object/Geometry Collections, wholesale, and transport the text of 10.4 to 3.1 (becoming 3.1.9). This would let us keep the normative language.
  2. If there's no consensus for this, we can change the normative language in the Interop Considerations, leaving them otherwise as they are.

Sound like a plan? /cc @tschaub @martinthomson @dret

martinthomson commented 8 years ago

WFM

sgillies commented 8 years ago

Superseded by #195.

sgillies commented 8 years ago

@tschaub I need clarification: are you now more in favor of this one than in favor of #195? It seems that way from your last msg to the mailing list.

tschaub commented 8 years ago

I understand now the issue of avoiding normative language in examples. I like that this change is simpler than #195. So reopening and merging this makes sense to me.

@sgillies if you feel strongly that some of the interoperability considerations should become normative recommendations, you could continue on #195 (and it also seems like the sections don't necessarily need to be reorganized, but rather the normative language would have to come out of the examples).