From:
"Robert Lipe" <robertlipe@usa.net>
Sent: 1/13/2005 9:46:24 AM
To:
gpsstash@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject:

Re: GPX standard extensions



--- In gpsstash@yahoogroups.com, "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.