Roger that...
On 9/6/07, Martin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, just a gleam in my eye right now...
>
> I haven't really progressed beyond what's already been discussed on this
> list. I think my next step would be to put together an example and
> document some of the constraints, and pu
Nope, just a gleam in my eye right now...
I haven't really progressed beyond what's already been discussed on this
list. I think my next step would be to put together an example and
document some of the constraints, and put that out for people to look
at. But this isn't high on my priority li
So is constrained Simple GML something your working on, or something
that is already published?
I'm confused. :]
SS
On 9/6/07, Martin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh sure, that would work.
>
> But I don't see how this is different to constrained Simple GML - and
> that world has the advant
Oh sure, that would work.
But I don't see how this is different to constrained Simple GML - and
that world has the advantage of an accepted standard behind it.
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> Martin wrote: "I think it's *too* simple. It would need typing
> information added."
>
> That is why I sugg
Martin wrote: "I think it's *too* simple. It would need typing
information added."
That is why I suggested adding the "datatype" property to the "val"
XML element. Wouldn't that work?
SS
On 9/4/07, Martin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> > Martin wrote: "I thin
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> Martin wrote: "I think I'm keen on pursuing the Super-Simple GML
> route. That has the best chance of being readable by other tools, I
> think."
>
> That is too bad. I was starting to like YAML. :] I'm actually going to
> try using it for a parseable change log on the
Martin wrote: "I think I'm keen on pursuing the Super-Simple GML
route. That has the best chance of being readable by other tools, I
think."
That is too bad. I was starting to like YAML. :] I'm actually going to
try using it for a parseable change log on the SurveyOS SVN Repository
module for JTS
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
> YAML looks very clean. A lot cleaner than the corresponding XML. Very
> interesting.
>
> It looks like there is also an open source parser for YAML written in Java:
>
> http://jyaml.sourceforge.net/
>
> What do you think Martin? Is YAML a better option than GML?
>
>
; -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Sunburned Surveyor
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:31 PM
> To: List for discussion of JPP development and use.
> Subject: Re: [JPP-Devel] Example of YAML for geospatial data
>
>
use.
Subject: Re: [JPP-Devel] Example of YAML for geospatial data
YAML looks very clean. A lot cleaner than the corresponding XML. Very
interesting.
It looks like there is also an open source parser for YAML written in Java:
http://jyaml.sourceforge.net/
What do you think Martin? Is YAML a
YAML looks very clean. A lot cleaner than the corresponding XML. Very
interesting.
It looks like there is also an open source parser for YAML written in Java:
http://jyaml.sourceforge.net/
What do you think Martin? Is YAML a better option than GML?
The Sunburned Surveyor
On 8/30/07, Martin Dav
Just for grins, I coded up a simple example of YAML for tabular
geospatial data.
Seems like this might be another direction to go in. YAML has solved a
lot of the tricky little issues you get into when serializing data to a
text format.
The one thing they don't have AFAICS is a way of encod
12 matches
Mail list logo
