On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Even Rouault <even.roua...@mines-paris.org> wrote: > >> In case you feel like testing it, the functions needed are >> OGRSpatialReference::importFromProj4() and exportToProj4(), the later >> which is not documented. >> >> Perhaps others can comment on the suitability of exporttoProj4() ??? >> > > It is documented but doxygen didn't like a macro that was inserted between the > comment and the function. Should be fixed by r23070
thanks! > > I'd note that proj4 strings have not all the expressivity of WKT. In > particular they cannot capture citation strings, or authority name and code. > So the suitability of using them depends on what you want to do with them. > How important is this information? Assuming we drop all the citation strings, or authority names and codes, but retain the important parameters of each projection (in CF and proj format), are we missing anything important numerically? In other words, are there any show-stopper issues that would keep us from using proj4 instead of wkt? _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
