"I have never been wrong BUT I have been known to clarify my position from time to time." - meA few months ago I mentioned that I want to avoid substantive changes and a version 1.1 of the GeoPackage standard. It didn't quite work out that way so I would like to clarify what administrative, substantive, and critical changes mean in the context of standards development.
- Administrative changes are changes to wording, grammar, and usage that do not affect requirements
- Substantive changes alter requirements
- Critical changes modify requirements in a way that make existing files invalid or would make valid files unusable on systems designed to work with the original version
I am fine with this. What I really should have said in September is that critical changes are to be avoided. I still want to avoid a "GeoPackage 2" or even a "GeoPackage 1.3". The GeoPackage developer community is as adamant about this as I am, if not more so. This was never more apparent than in the discussion about the CRS WKT extension. It took more work to get this extension to the point that it was satisfactory. Maybe now we are where we need to be. If you don't think it is there, let us know. I want to get this right.