New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Collapse extensions information under single annex #132

Closed
jyutzler opened this Issue Aug 14, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@jyutzler
Contributor

jyutzler commented Aug 14, 2015

There are currently a number of separate annexes (J through P) in the specification, each describing a different extension. This information all overlaps with what is in section 3. Since this information is not part of the core, it could all be moved into a single annex.

@jyutzler jyutzler added this to the tiles-corrigendum milestone Aug 14, 2015

@jyutzler

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jyutzler commented Aug 18, 2015

In today's SWG we agreed to do this.

@bradh

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

bradh commented Nov 16, 2015

If this hasn't already been done, I'd like to ask that it not be applied. This is just churn for no real value - breaks references (e.g. in code samples), and does not make it easier for future implementers.

@jyutzler

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jyutzler commented Nov 16, 2015

I understand your concern here but I don't think it will be a big deal. Section anchor names are automatically generated based on section titles so if entire sections are moved, the anchor names should remain the same.

Right now the bigger issue is that information regarding a specific extension is scattered around the document. Having to flip back and forth between Section 3 and an annex has proven painful. This will only get worse as new extensions are added, requiring more and more annexes (and forcing the annex IDs to change each time).

@bradh

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

bradh commented Nov 16, 2015

From the spatialite GeoPackage source:

gpkg_add_spatial_index.c
203:                            "'GeoPackage 1.0 Specification Annex L', 'write-only')",

gpkg_add_geometry_triggers.c
167:                            "'GeoPackage 1.0 Specification Annex N', 'write-only')",
180:                            "'GeoPackage 1.0 Specification Annex N', 'write-only')",

From libgpkg:

gpkg/gpkg_db.c
766:             db_name, table_name, geometry_column_name, "gpkg_rtree_index", "GeoPackage 1.0 Specification Annex L", "write-only"
@jyutzler

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jyutzler commented Nov 26, 2015

@bradh I'm sorry but it had to be done. Right now the information about a particular extension is spread across at least 4 different parts of the document. It is unreasonable to expect a reader to be able to find all of the relevant information.

This is pain for me too. I'm going to have to review every reference in the abstract test suite because they are hard-coded, not linked. I'm sure there are other parts to this that will bite me too.

@jyutzler jyutzler closed this Nov 26, 2015

jyutzler added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 26, 2015

This was referenced Nov 26, 2015

@jyutzler jyutzler modified the milestones: tiles-corrigendum, 1.0.2 Nov 29, 2015

@jyutzler jyutzler reopened this Dec 28, 2015

@jyutzler jyutzler closed this Dec 28, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment