The GeoPackage Standards Working Group has two questions for the community:
- Is the extension mechanism working the way we want it to? Are we getting new capabilities? Are we getting the interoperability we are looking for?
- What should we do if an OGC-adopted extension has to change?
- We are leery of adding a "version" column to gpkg_extensions because GeoPackage clients that only understand version 1.2 or prior wouldn't even know about it. It is borderline whether this is a breaking change.
- An alternative that has some backing is to allow extensions to evolve as long as the changes are non-breaking but to force an extension to take a new name if the changes are breaking.
We would like to get positive answers to these questions because there are a number of initiatives going on that have the potential to add a number of new adopted extensions. Do we need to pivot? I believe the answer is "no" but it is possible I am too close to the situation to make a fair assessment.