[gdal-dev] XYZM support (Was Roadmap to 2.0?)

[Ari Jolma]

On 09/18/2012 06:41 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Have there been any more thoughts on XYZM support? I may be in a 
> position to help fund some of this work in 2013.

I have been negligent enough to not even write about this to the Wiki. I 
did that now.

It would be good to have somebody get to work with this.

Ari

>
> David
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Ari Jolma <ari.jolma at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ari.jolma at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 05/18/2012 08:51 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
>         On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Ari
>         Jolma<ari.jolma at gmail.com <mailto:ari.jolma at gmail.com>>  wrote:
>
>             Folks,
>
>             The deadline for 2.0 is at the end of this year:
>             http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/milestone/2.0.0
>
>         Ari,
>
>         Lets not take this deadline too seriously.  If it takes
>         till summer 2013 for 2.0 that is ok (IMHO).
>
>
>     Deadlines are usually good ;)
>
>     but I have no problem with this. If it takes longer then it takes
>     longer.
>
>
>
>             Is the RFC list the best source for what new features are
>             planned for it?
>
>             This page is about smaller issues for 2.0:
>             http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/GDAL20Changes
>
>             I have an old wish to have full XYZM support in GDAL and
>             it would be a good
>             candidate to the plan for 2.0 - see also
>             http://www.mail-archive.com/gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org/msg13470.html
>             Is anybody doing a review of what it would take?
>
>         I believe XYZM support would be a great feature for 2.0 and
>         ideally
>         would be part of an upgrade to the more recent "simple
>         features geometry"
>         model that includes various other geometry types.
>
>         I'm not sure who might want to take on this task though.  It isn't
>         currently a focus of mine even though I'd like to see it happen.
>
>         We aren't really a Roadmap kind of project, but I welcome
>         discussion
>         of things we would like to accomplish in 2.0 which is our
>         opportunity
>         for substantial changes.
>
>
>     I could do two things:
>
>     Edit the "smaller issues" page to contain also larger issues (as
>     the link to it on the main page says).
>
>     Begin a XYZM RFC.
>
>     Ari
>
>
>         Best regards,
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     gdal-dev mailing list
>     gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ************************************
> David William Bitner

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20120918/9f6d8f4c/attachment.html>