Hello,

[maybe it's time to start changing the subject line to better reflect
what we're discussing]

Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:11:12 PM, Simon wrote:

> This would be great and it's how I always assumed GPX worked, but
> since joining this list I've found it doesn't work. Because there is
> no mechanism for performing some of the arrows like

> a proposed GPX extension->a holy GPX extension

> because nobody (here in this list or elsewhere) cares, or perhaps even
> knows how to make it happen even if they do care. So if your
> progression is to work, part of the 'rescue' job is to work out how to
> trigger and effect each of the arrows.

There are two "holy" GPX extension schemas, gpx_overlay and gpx_style.
I proposed both of them back in 2004, and after some minimal input
from members of this list, (even back then, not many people cared)
they were blessed, given a "gpx_" prefix, and moved into the same
folder hierarchy as the gpx 1.1 schema on
http://www.topografix.com/gpx/ to indicated their holiness.

I was hoping at the time that other extension schemas would follow.
None did. I didn't have any urgent need for further compatibility
with other programs after that, so the few changes I've made to my GPX
output since then have gone in a private extension schema.

As I recall, the "rules" we had in place for accepting an extension
schema as holy went something like this:

- you want it? you propose it, create and host a schema. feel free
to use this mailing list to recruit others to help, but it's your
project.
- implement support for your schema in your app.
- get a second person to implement support for your schema (proving
that data can actually be exchanged between the two)
- come back to this email list and ask for it to be made a standard
gpx extension
- respond to whatever feedback you get here, making changes to your
schema if needed
- after two weeks have passed with no new objections, your schema
gets holy, gets a gpx_ prefix, and gets to live next to the main gpx
schema.


I really hate trying to find things in the GPSXML archives on Yahoo
Groups, but here's one of the original posts on this topic:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/gpsxml/message/463

Are these still the "rules" we want to play by? If not, how should we
proceed?



I'm ready to start collaborating on a handful of extension schemas
related to map calibration, POIs, geotagging photos, and typed or
untyped data (similar to
http://code.google.com/apis/kml/documentation/extendeddata.html ) and
I promise to comment on and contribute to any other proposed schemas
that others take the lead on.



--
Dan Foster