Hi Yonik: > > If you're forced to declare the namespace / put the URI, I'm just > afraid of what clients / XML parsers out there may start trying to > validate by default.
And even if they did, it's valid XML so what's the problem? > And I'm still trying to figure out what we gain. * plugging into other standard GIS tools (here's a list of georss ones: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&fkt=1998&fsdt=4214&q=georss+readers&a q=f&aqi=g1&oq=&fp=b36c7832dbb01be6 ) * understanding that a <point is not a <solr:point (which in your examples you're using a ',' to separate them while e.g., georss suggests a ' ') but a georss:point. From this you can: - look up the field definition - generate default values - understand the unit restrictions There is a wealth of work in XML schema so I'm not sure I have to justify its use. > If one does want validation, it seems like we should have an > (optional) schema for the XML response as a whole? I'm happy to provide this, for validation, but let's start small, then grow big. SOLR-1586 does _not_ break anything. Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++