On Mar 9, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Mateusz Loskot wrote: > Martin Isenburg wrote: >> that is the sentiment i have heard on the showfloor everywhere >> (except in front of the leice booth) (-; >> i suggested to everyone to organize a worksop and create LAS 1.4 and >> do it right. > > Amen to that Martin! > >> LAS 1.3 was a dud and everyone knows is. > > I did risk a bit of prophecy ([1], [2]) some time ago. > I'd risk it again saying that the industry is not taking LAS seriously > by adopting it widely and in compatible way, because of that problem > you point. > > So, the industry does "not much", but enthusiasts like libLAS project > are wasting their precious time putting makeup on every new > head of growing monster. > > [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/liblas-devel/2009-April/000478.html > [2] https://lidarbb.cr.usgs.gov/index.php?showtopic=6385&st=0&p=7712
Additionally, I don't think libLAS is going to implement LAS 1.3 in any near future. I will likely implement reading LAS 1.0-1.2 -style points out of 1.3 files, but I highly doubt we'll implement the full 1.3 spec in any sort of waveform capacity unless someone from the community dumps a giant patch on us. If they go so far as to do that, they own that sandwich they just took a bite out of too :) This also brings up the question of what to name the next libLAS release. We were marching along with specification/release parity (1.1, 1.2, etc), but our next release is scheduled to be called 1.3 and it's not going to have LAS 1.3 support. How about libLAS 1.8? Howard _______________________________________________ Liblas-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/liblas-devel
