"Scout" <>
Sent: 1/13/2005 10:18:50 AM

Re: GPX standard extensions

"Robert Lipe" wrote:
> I'm behind the formation of _one_ such standard for geocaching
> extensions to GPX.

That's fine with me. is a producer of GPX, not a
consumer. If the consumers (e.g., GpsBabel) publish an open standard
that their tools will accept, I'll bend over backwards to try to
produce that format. I offered the GPX that currently
produces in hopes of speeding the process up.

> Scout, maybe I caught it at a bad moment, but your xsd has
> validation problems. Have you fed your sample to SAX2Count
> or any other validator lately?

I apologize. I've been tweaking the xsd and sample in the last few
days. I believe the version currently posted passes SAX2Count


> It's interesting that you based it on GPX 1.0 instead of GPX 1.1.

That was just an oversight. I'm not familiar with the differences.

> You need to spell out which fields are HTML and which are not.
> It looks like sometimes log is and sometimes log isn't but I'm
> not spotting a specifier which tells me which it is.

The logs in the GPX files should always be treated as
HTML. They don't always have HTML markup in them, but they are all
treated as HTML when displayed on the site. I'll look into how to
specify this in the xsd.

> This is a particular problem for which appears to allow
> two encodings that have to be individually parsed: it looks like
> you have to HTML parse it FIRST and then rot13 parse it.

That is correct. I guess the point was not to have the plaintext hint
in the GPX. Hand the HTML-encoded hint to your widget and display the
encrypted hint, the same way the Web site does.

> It's interesting that you've allowd as a list.
> I could make a type of regular hitchhiker multi webcam
> locationless which would be legal but kind of paradoxical.

Well... I'm not sure you can create mutually exclusive subsets. For
example, I can place a multi-stage cache, with the first stage being
a regular cache, the second stage a micro, and the last being a
Webcam or a virtual. The reason I lumped them all in together is
because I didn't want to restrict the creativity of geocachers. If
they can think of a way to combine a hitchhiker with a locationless
cache, I think that would be a clever addition to the hobby.

That was the thinking anyway. If the majority of sites/programs
really think it makes sense to create mutually exclusive types, I can
find a best fit for whatever boxes some user of might
check off on that site.

> If we want to do this in a more spam-free environment than this
> yahoogroup seems to be, we can move this discussion to the other
> mentioned place.

I'll go where the traffic is. The Yahoo ads at the bottom of the
emails never bothered me, personally. And the spams that come to this
list could be controlled if the list owner was active and cared to.