<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [Liblas-devel] workshop to define LAS 1.4 (was Full waveformlidar data)</TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr id=idOWAReplyText8111>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>Why don't you call it "vodoo lib 98". Then the next release can be "voodoo lib XP". Then "voodoo lib Vista". Or some similar nonsensical sequence.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial>That way we all know what version it is :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I am SO sick of version numbers that don't match anything or make any sense. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Trying to make liblas match the version of LAS it support -- WONDERFUL idea!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial>So go to Liblas 1.2.x -- then perhaps we'll skip to liblas 1.4.x (but does that presume pre-4 compatibility?)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr id=idSignature75088>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>Michael D. Black</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Senior Scientist</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Northrop Grumman Mission Systems</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> liblas-devel-bounces@lists.osgeo.org on behalf of Howard Butler<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tue 3/9/2010 12:16 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Liblas-devel@lists.osgeo.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Liblas-devel] workshop to define LAS 1.4 (was Full waveformlidar data)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>On Mar 9, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:<BR><BR>> Martin Isenburg wrote:<BR>>> that is the sentiment i have heard on the showfloor everywhere<BR>>> (except in front of the leice booth) (-;<BR>>> i suggested to everyone to organize a worksop and create LAS 1.4 and<BR>>> do it right.<BR>><BR>> Amen to that Martin!<BR>><BR>>> LAS 1.3 was a dud and everyone knows is.<BR>><BR>> I did risk a bit of prophecy ([1], [2]) some time ago.<BR>> I'd risk it again saying that the industry is not taking LAS seriously<BR>> by adopting it widely and in compatible way, because of that problem<BR>> you point.<BR>><BR>> So, the industry does "not much", but enthusiasts like libLAS project<BR>> are wasting their precious time putting makeup on every new<BR>> head of growing monster.<BR>><BR>> [1] <A href="http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/liblas-devel/2009-April/000478.html">http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/liblas-devel/2009-April/000478.html</A><BR>> [2] <A href="https://lidarbb.cr.usgs.gov/index.php?showtopic=6385&st=0&p=7712">https://lidarbb.cr.usgs.gov/index.php?showtopic=6385&st=0&p=7712</A><BR><BR>Additionally, I don't think libLAS is going to implement LAS 1.3 in any near future. I will likely implement reading LAS 1.0-1.2 -style points out of 1.3 files, but I highly doubt we'll implement the full 1.3 spec in any sort of waveform capacity unless someone from the community dumps a giant patch on us. If they go so far as to do that, they own that sandwich they just took a bite out of too :)<BR><BR>This also brings up the question of what to name the next libLAS release. We were marching along with specification/release parity (1.1, 1.2, etc), but our next release is scheduled to be called 1.3 and it's not going to have LAS 1.3 support. <BR><BR>How about libLAS 1.8?<BR><BR>Howard _______________________________________________<BR>Liblas-devel mailing list<BR>Liblas-devel@lists.osgeo.org<BR><A href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/liblas-devel">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/liblas-devel</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>