[Oops, our notes passed each other in the mail.]
On Jun 15, 2005, at 6/15/05 9:42 AM, Carl Reed wrote:
> You still appear to be missing the point. We can leave CAP and EDXL
> with
> WGS 84 as the default (but not mandatory!) so that all existing
> implementations work and the level of "simplicity" being sought is
> maintained. We are suggesting optional elements that would allow
> folks to
> use other than WGS 84 as the only CRS.
OK, my mistake... guess we *aren't* all agreed on the need to fix on
a single standard reference system. Personally, I think we do, if
only in order to keep things simple for implementers. Otherwise
we're going to have only local rather than global interoperability of
CAP messages.
What we're not getting here is a sense of proportion. Is this a
serious and widespread problem or just a few folks' personal
theoretical axe? I really can't tell... although I'll note again
that none of these complaints seem to come from folks who've actually
deployed implementations.
- Art
