Here is my 2 cents: I don't think there is right vs. wrong answer here, since I'm not aware of any spatial standard that everyone must follow (or there could be?) If that's the case, then different people could have different preferences. But for usability and adoption purposes, I would say we should be close as much as we can to one of the popular formats out there. Here is yet another format: http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/rest/apiref/geometry.html
Sattam On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Chris Hillery <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Sattam Alsubaiee <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > For spatial types, it looks like GeoJSON is a good reference. We can > pretty > > much use their style for all of our spatial types: > > > I'm afraid I don't agree with this assessment, for the reasons I mentioned > earlier. We could offer a library to convert to/from GeoJSON, but I do not > think it (or, worse, "something like it") is a good choice for either the > lossless or the clean JSON serializations. > > Ceej > aka Chris Hillery >
