Closed perrygeo closed 8 years ago
re: the crs
object. Per chat with @sgillies
a geojson linter should flag the presence of a crs member, absolutely. in the case of "urn:ogc:def:crs:OGC:1.3:CRS84" i believe it should report "this crs member is equivalent to the GeoJSON default and should be removed to minimize confusion"
@perrygeo thanks! The gist of "extensions must not change semantics" is
What shoud we do about versions? Should we allow for validation against the GJ2008 spec vs IETF spec?
The goal of the GeoJSON WG is to obsolete the old spec and enabling people to validate against the old appears (to me) contrary to that goal.
Would you be able to take the lead on this? I'll help but I expect that I'll have to deal with a bunch of nitpicking yet to get GeoJSON to RFC and should focus on that.
@sgillies I'll work on getting test cases together next week.
@tmcw I may hit you up for some questions about the codebase.
Based on Appendix B of the draft IETF GeoJSON spec here are some additional tests we may want to add to bring geojsonhint in line with the upcoming spec
crs
object is not recommended?This is just a preliminary list; might have missed some and some of these may be covered by existing tests that I didn't see on the first pass. Can we get more :eyes: on this list and help me refine it?
What shoud we do about versions? Should we allow for validation against the GJ2008 spec vs IETF spec?
cc @sgillies