> where did you get the OGC / Google Cooperative effort?<br>It was announced recently - can't remember where now but a Google search on KML and OGC should produce results.<br><br><span class="q">> They need to ditch there own schema concept and go with a standard xml
<br>> schema...<br>It's my understanding that they will release a schema in due course (I don't think there's a KML schema at all at the moment is there?). A schema would definitely be useful for developers, provided it's properly constructed. The GML schema is very complex and, because it's aggregated other documents, you can't easily do things like automatically create Java classes from it (as far as I know) - so its practical use for tooling is a bit limited.
<br><br></span>> Speaking only for myself, I'm much more likely to support KML than any<br>> other XML geographic format. I am wholly in favor of supporting KML in<br>> OpenLayers, regardless of what Google does with it from here on out.
<br>> It's well-understood, it's simple, and it works.<br>I agree! It would be a disaster if KML became much more complicated - there are so many datasets popping up in KML because it's simple. BTW, I've heard talk of KML "profiles": for example, certain KML constructs are meaningless in a 2-D environment like Google Maps and OpenLayers, so there might be a profile for 2-D apps that misses some features out. I'm not sure whether (and when) this would happen though.
<br><br>Regards,<br>Jon<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/19/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Christopher Schmidt</b> <<a href="mailto:crschmidt@metacarta.com">crschmidt@metacarta.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:08:12PM -0600, Lance Dyas wrote:<br>> Jon Blower wrote:<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > I would strongly support the idea of supporting KML in OpenLayers,<br>> > particularly now that Google are standardising KML through OGC.
<br>> They need to ditch there own schema concept and go with a standard xml<br>> schema...<br><br>Speaking only for myself, I'm much more likely to support KML than any<br>other XML geographic format. I am wholly in favor of supporting KML in
<br>OpenLayers, regardless of what Google does with it from here on out.<br>It's well-understood, it's simple, and it works.<br><br>Regards,<br>--<br>Christopher Schmidt<br>MetaCarta<br>_______________________________________________
<br>Users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Users@openlayers.org">Users@openlayers.org</a><br><a href="http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/users">http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/users</a><br></blockquote></div><br>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>--------------------------------------------------------------<br>Dr Jon Blower Tel: +44 118 378 5213 (direct line)<br>Technical Director Tel: +44 118 378 8741 (ESSC)<br>Reading e-Science Centre Fax: +44 118 378 6413
<br>ESSC Email: <a href="mailto:jdb@mail.nerc-essc.ac.uk">jdb@mail.nerc-essc.ac.uk</a><br>University of Reading<br>3 Earley Gate<br>Reading RG6 6AL, UK<br>--------------------------------------------------------------