Comments on: Earth5 http://www.realityprime.com/articles/earth5 Advanced Technology Research Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:50:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: shajahan http://www.realityprime.com/articles/earth5/comment-page-1#comment-14454 shajahan Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:51:51 +0000 http://www.realityprime.com/?p=285#comment-14454 goggle earth very good ilike it goggle earth very good ilike it

]]> By: Ed Parsons http://www.realityprime.com/articles/earth5/comment-page-1#comment-13667 Ed Parsons Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:27:51 +0000 http://www.realityprime.com/?p=285#comment-13667 The collaborative part of the process is still to come, Google have tabled the extension to KML, the Mass Market Working Group (MMWG) of the OGC was emailed details of the extensions yesterday and these will be debated at the upcoming technical committee meeting of the OGC. The KML standard can only be extended in this way, collaboration is key to the process, as co-chair to the MMWG I look forward to your contributions to the discussion. The collaborative part of the process is still to come, Google have tabled the extension to KML, the Mass Market Working Group (MMWG) of the OGC was emailed details of the extensions yesterday and these will be debated at the upcoming technical committee meeting of the OGC.

The KML standard can only be extended in this way, collaboration is key to the process, as co-chair to the MMWG I look forward to your contributions to the discussion.

]]> By: avi http://www.realityprime.com/articles/earth5/comment-page-1#comment-13665 avi Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:27:11 +0000 http://www.realityprime.com/?p=285#comment-13665 Namespaces serve a valuable purpose. And I think I was clear about the process being legitimate. However, you make it sound as if Google is the unwilling subject of rules it significantly helped create, and that there is no possible way to advance the spec in a collaborative way. Arguing that this is much better than seeing Google pollute the global namespace is kind of silly, since no one suggested they do that either. Clearly, this method is much better than Google assassinating the pope as well. I wholeheartedly agree. Namespaces serve a valuable purpose. And I think I was clear about the process being legitimate. However, you make it sound as if Google is the unwilling subject of rules it significantly helped create, and that there is no possible way to advance the spec in a collaborative way.

Arguing that this is much better than seeing Google pollute the global namespace is kind of silly, since no one suggested they do that either. Clearly, this method is much better than Google assassinating the pope as well. I wholeheartedly agree.

]]> By: Matt http://www.realityprime.com/articles/earth5/comment-page-1#comment-13662 Matt Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:43:01 +0000 http://www.realityprime.com/?p=285#comment-13662 The standards process for KML actually requires complete proof-of-concept implementations to have been tested in the wild before proposals for new KML tags will be considered. To be standards-compliant, this testing phase has to be conducted using an extension namespace. Google is just following the rules of the KML standards process. This seems like a much better situation to me than if they were to set a bad example by introducing new tags willy-nilly into the main KML namespace. The standards process for KML actually requires complete proof-of-concept implementations to have been tested in the wild before proposals for new KML tags will be considered. To be standards-compliant, this testing phase has to be conducted using an extension namespace. Google is just following the rules of the KML standards process. This seems like a much better situation to me than if they were to set a bad example by introducing new tags willy-nilly into the main KML namespace.

]]>