--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Scout" wrote: > > I offer the following GPX extension as a starting point for a > standard. It's a work in progress. I've recently changed it to be > more compatible with geocaching.com.au. I expect it'll be changing
I've had variations of this discussion with many different providers of geocaching extensions to GPX. I'm behind the formation of _one_ such standard for geocaching extensions to GPX. Well, more accurately, I suppose I'm behind the formation of a second such standard and am wildly disinterested in more than two. :-)
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?
It's interesting that you based it on GPX 1.0 instead of GPX 1.1. For your needs, the differences are small - mostly in the way URLs are build. With 1.1 you can associate multiple linky links with a waypoint and that was the justification for that change. There wree also some changes to allow better attribute groupings of the global metadata.
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. 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. This is really clumsy for readers that are able to just hand an HTML encoded chunk of text to a widget for display.
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. While I won't point to the groundspeak example as a model of clarity, subsetting this into some mutually exclusive types that are easier for readers to parse (the point of XML is to NOT have to do much additional parsing on thefields...) would allow stronger typing and simplify the readers.
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.