Skip to content
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

Remove Extended GeoPackage File Extension Recommendation #261

Closed
cclark1984 opened this issue Oct 17, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

Remove Extended GeoPackage File Extension Recommendation #261

cclark1984 opened this issue Oct 17, 2016 · 2 comments
Milestone

Comments

@cclark1984
Copy link
Contributor

@cclark1984 cclark1984 commented Oct 17, 2016

The OGC GeoPackage specification outlines in great detail the extension mechanism. In order for an application to determine what extensions are currently available, it must open the GeoPackage and query the gpkg_extensions table. It is likely that an application that supports no extensions can still access the GeoPackage without issue, especially if the application accesses a GeoPackage in a read-only fashion and the gpkg_extensions.scope column indicates a value of “write_only”. The presence of the ".gpkx" extension provides no real value. Applications still need to open the GeoPackage to determine if the extensions impose any additional requirements on accessing the data and therefore the ".gpkx" extension serves no purpose.

Applications will need to recognize two separate file extensions. There is a distinct possibility that application developers will only support the mandatory ".gpkg" file extension.

@jyutzler
Copy link
Contributor

@jyutzler jyutzler commented Oct 18, 2016

As we discussed during the SWG today, we will remove this option as it serves no discernible purpose.

@jyutzler jyutzler added this to the 1.2 milestone Oct 18, 2016
jyutzler added a commit to jyutzler/geopackage that referenced this issue Oct 18, 2016
@jyutzler jyutzler closed this Oct 18, 2016
@jyutzler jyutzler mentioned this issue Oct 18, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants