Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Status of GPX

Expand Messages
  • Don Reith
    ... changes ... year. ... Given that the latest ExpertGPS build saves to 1.1 is that an indication that 1.1 is wrapped up? I need to get to work to update my
    Message 1 of 11 , May 3, 2004
      --- In gpsxml@yahoogroups.com, Dan Foster <egroups@t...> wrote:

      > The GPX schema is hosted on topografix.com, and I update it as
      changes
      > are approved. GPX 1.0 has been complete and locked for about a
      year.
      > We're wrapping up the changes to GPX 1.1 now.

      Given that the latest ExpertGPS build saves to 1.1 is that an
      indication that 1.1 is wrapped up?

      I need to get to work to update my MapPoint plug-in as it barfs on
      1.1 files...

      Don
      http://homepage.mac.com/donreith/gpxExchange/
    • Dan Foster
      Hello, Monday, May 3, 2004, 9:55:18 AM, Don wrote: D Given that the latest ExpertGPS build saves to 1.1 is that an D indication that 1.1 is wrapped up?
      Message 2 of 11 , May 3, 2004
        Hello,

        Monday, May 3, 2004, 9:55:18 AM, Don wrote:

        D> Given that the latest ExpertGPS build saves to 1.1 is that an
        D> indication that 1.1 is wrapped up?

        Changes like Dave W's base URL request could still be added without
        problems. Because it is an optional element, it wouldn't cause
        problems with the existing version of ExpertGPS, or files created with
        it.

        I still need to write the GPX 1.1 developer's manual (1.0 is at
        http://www.topografix.com/gpx_manual.asp ). It would be nice to wrap
        up the discussion on Dave's proposal and any other changes this month.

        --
        Dan Foster
        TopoGrafix - GPS Software, Waypoints, and Maps
        http://www.topografix.com - mailto:egroups@...
      • lehto123
        ... standardisation status of GPX. Is there any activities relating to e.g OMA (Open Mobile Alliance) or any other forums. Who is responsiple of ... D The GPX
        Message 3 of 11 , May 11, 2004
          --- In gpsxml@yahoogroups.com, Dan Foster <egroups@t...> wrote:
          > Hello,
          >
          > Wednesday, April 28, 2004, 9:07:15 AM, Mike wrote:
          >
          > M> As a new subscriber of this group, a question about
          standardisation status of GPX. Is there any activities relating to
          e.g OMA (Open Mobile Alliance) or any other forums. Who is
          responsiple of
          > M> changes if DTD needs to maintained?
          >
          D> The GPX schema is hosted on topografix.com, and I update it as
          changes
          > are approved. GPX 1.0 has been complete and locked for about a
          year.
          > We're wrapping up the changes to GPX 1.1 now.
          >
          > Early on, we decided to focus on getting GPX into use, rather than
          > push for its adoption in one of the standards committees. If you'd
          > like to lead an effort to get it certified, I'm sure there would be
          D> people on the GPX list willing to help you.

          In many cases it is more efficient to do just as you said above since
          standarisation is often slow process and waiting of results can delay
          development. However it can give some benefits later because "de
          facto" type of formats which are hosted by one company (even it might
          be in strong position in market) include more risks from 3rd party Sw
          vendor point of view. As a conclusion I understand that there is no
          activities ongoing relating to standardisation of GPX according to
          knowlege of subscribers of gpsxml-group?
        • David S. Wissenbach
          ... with ... I m not sure that the base URL is absolutely necessary. I think that for now we re all agreed that we ll use absolute URLs. ... wrap ... month.
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 7, 2004
            --- In gpsxml@yahoogroups.com, Dan Foster <egroups@t...> wrote:
            > Hello,
            >
            > Monday, May 3, 2004, 9:55:18 AM, Don wrote:
            >
            > D> Given that the latest ExpertGPS build saves to 1.1 is that an
            > D> indication that 1.1 is wrapped up?
            >
            > Changes like Dave W's base URL request could still be added without
            > problems. Because it is an optional element, it wouldn't cause
            > problems with the existing version of ExpertGPS, or files created
            with
            > it.
            >

            I'm not sure that the base URL is absolutely necessary. I think that
            for now we're all agreed that we'll use absolute URLs.

            > I still need to write the GPX 1.1 developer's manual (1.0 is at
            > http://www.topografix.com/gpx_manual.asp ). It would be nice to
            wrap
            > up the discussion on Dave's proposal and any other changes this
            month.
            >

            I think that on of the things that we need to wrap up the format is
            to prove interoperability and publish example data. I'm converting
            Wissenbach Map3D to utilize the new format and expect to be done
            with this by the end of the month. I'd like to converge on a frozen
            format soon. I think this is expecially important because of the
            proliferation of GPS devices which has become more mainstream.
            (Lately, I've noticed a lot of mountain bikers carrying GPS
            receivers.)

            The one think that W3C brings in the standardization is a known
            process (publish working drafts, last call, specification finalized
            as a recommendation after two applications prove interoperability
            and a test suite has been published, etc.) Unfortunately, this
            process carries a lot of weight (I work closely with a
            representative of my employer who is on several W3C committees and
            this standards work has become almost his entire full-time job!)

            So I wouldn't want to go to the W3C, but at the same time, wider
            adoption of the GPX format by larger software companies might
            require the price of more formal process.

            Anyways, I'll contribute test files to the links area, and sample
            data on my website, once I finish the conversion of Wissenbach Map3D
            to the 1/1 format later this month.

            Dave Wissenbach
          • Dan Foster
            Hello, Monday, June 7, 2004, 8:19:19 AM, Dave W. wrote: D I think that on of the things that we need to wrap up the format is D to prove interoperability and
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 9, 2004
              Hello,

              Monday, June 7, 2004, 8:19:19 AM, Dave W. wrote:

              D> I think that on of the things that we need to wrap up the format is
              D> to prove interoperability and publish example data.

              I've implemented about 95% of what's in the <metadata> tag in
              ExpertGPS, and I'll post a sample file tomorrow to test against.

              D> The one think that W3C brings in the standardization is a known
              D> process (publish working drafts, last call, specification finalized
              D> as a recommendation after two applications prove interoperability
              D> and a test suite has been published, etc.) Unfortunately, this
              D> process carries a lot of weight (I work closely with a
              D> representative of my employer who is on several W3C committees and
              D> this standards work has become almost his entire full-time job!)

              D> So I wouldn't want to go to the W3C, but at the same time, wider
              D> adoption of the GPX format by larger software companies might
              D> require the price of more formal process.

              The annual Associate Member fee at w3c.org is $5700. I nominate Dave
              as our [unpaid] representative!

              We've had a few new list members ask "is GPX a standard?" and then
              disappear without any follow-up. I've heard various rumors that "big
              companies" are interested in GPX, but I won't repeat them here. If
              standardization or rigid procedures are a requirement for anyone
              lurking on the list, it would be good to hear it from you.

              I agree that we should have a more formal procedure for locking down
              versions of GPX, and also for proposing and adopting new changes.
              The "talk until we reach consensus" approach worked
              well in GPX 1.0, when there was a core group of developers who were
              all implementing GPX solutions at the same time. Questions got rapid
              replies. There are several hundred list members now, but questions
              don't many responses these days. Dave's original question about base
              URLs was asked in April, and it hasn't been resolved until now.

              If there's a consensus that we need a more rigid format, let's do it.
              We can start with GPX 1.1, if you'd like.

              Thoughts?

              --
              Dan Foster
              TopoGrafix - GPS Software, Waypoints, and Maps
              http://www.topografix.com - mailto:egroups@...
            • Dan Foster
              Hello, Here s some sample output from ExpertGPS. You ll notice I ve moved my own private metadata element (topografix:active_point) to the
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 10, 2004
                Hello,

                Here's some sample output from ExpertGPS. You'll notice I've moved my
                own private metadata element (topografix:active_point) to the
                <metadata> extensions as well.

                http://www.topografix.com/gpx/samples/topografix/metadata.gpx

                --
                Dan Foster
                TopoGrafix - GPS Software, Waypoints, and Maps
                http://www.topografix.com - mailto:egroups@...
              • Robert Lipe
                ... At a glance, the only thing I see that makes me uneasy is the email tag which has now had its content moved from the tag to tag attributes. I don t know
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 10, 2004
                  Dan Foster <egroups@...> wrote:

                  > Here's some sample output from ExpertGPS. You'll notice I've moved my
                  > own private metadata element (topografix:active_point) to the
                  > <metadata> extensions as well.
                  >
                  > http://www.topografix.com/gpx/samples/topografix/metadata.gpx

                  At a glance, the only thing I see that makes me uneasy is the 'email' tag
                  which has now had its content moved from the tag to tag attributes. I don't
                  know if its your plan to have email parse differently inside metadata than
                  everywhere else (please don't) but if so, this is a change that will cause 1.0
                  readers to no longer see the contents of that tag.
                • Dan Foster
                  Hello, ... R At a glance, the only thing I see that makes me uneasy is the email tag R which has now had its content moved from the tag to tag attributes.
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 10, 2004
                    Hello,

                    Thursday, June 10, 2004, 10:17:38 AM, Robert wrote:

                    >> http://www.topografix.com/gpx/samples/topografix/metadata.gpx

                    R> At a glance, the only thing I see that makes me uneasy is the 'email' tag
                    R> which has now had its content moved from the tag to tag attributes. I don't
                    R> know if its your plan to have email parse differently inside metadata than
                    R> everywhere else (please don't) but if so, this is a change that will cause 1.0
                    R> readers to no longer see the contents of that tag.

                    I'm not sure what you mean by "everywhere else" (ie, not inside
                    <metadata>) since <email> only appears in the <metadata> section of
                    GPX 1.1. Perhaps the Groundspeak schema has an <email> tag as well?

                    My intention was to break up the email address to keep it
                    from getting harvested by spam crawlers. trails @ topografix.com was
                    an email address I only used in GPX files, and it gets a fair amount
                    of spam now.

                    1.0 readers would have to be updated to see any of the new changes,
                    since they won't know to look inside <metadata>.

                    --
                    Dan Foster
                    TopoGrafix - GPS Software, Waypoints, and Maps
                    http://www.topografix.com - mailto:egroups@...
                  • Robert Lipe
                    ... In 1.0, there was email tag at the top level. http://www.topografix.com/gpx_manual.asp#email ... So this tag has been dropped, had it s format changed, and
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 10, 2004
                      > I'm not sure what you mean by "everywhere else" (ie, not inside
                      > <metadata>) since <email> only appears in the <metadata> section of
                      > GPX 1.1. Perhaps the Groundspeak schema has an <email> tag as well?

                      In 1.0, there was email tag at the top level.

                      http://www.topografix.com/gpx_manual.asp#email

                      > 1.0 readers would have to be updated to see any of the new changes,
                      > since they won't know to look inside <metadata>.

                      So this tag has been dropped, had it's format changed, and moved to metadata,
                      right?
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.