tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21167013.post7336307606301674813..comments2007-09-21T00:48:03.563-07:00Matt Gigerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08948284981378368476noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21167013.post-32993632828381636032007-09-21T00:48:00.000-07:002007-09-21T00:48:00.000-07:00I don't like the optional CRS. WGS84 is not here to stay. There's a reason that there is a year in its name.<BR/>Spatial data makes NO sense what-so-ever without a CRS, just as much as a point doesn't make sense without a X and Y, and we should always force this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21167013.post-50620455014840092322007-09-20T19:51:00.000-07:002007-09-20T19:51:00.000-07:00Hi Matt,<BR/><BR/>I'd encourage you to join and participate on the GeoJSON mailing list. There has been some further discussion there recently about the type parameter, and about using URIs with the CRS element.<BR/><BR/>http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org<BR/><BR/>Current "working" draft:<BR/><BR/>http://wiki.geojson.org/index.php?title=GeoJSON_draft_version_3<BR/><BR/>JasonJasonBirchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01067543245189087413noreply@blogger.com