Even Rouault mines-paris.org> writes:
> Motion : I move to adopt RFC 43 GDALMajorObject::GetMetadataDomainList()
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc43_getmetadatadomainlist
>
> Starting with my +1
>
> Best regards,
>
> Even
+1
-Jukka Rahkonen-
Hi,
Apart from a few interesting side discussions related to ISO metadata, the
proposal doesn't seem to be controversial.
Since the first version, I've added a section to the RFC to mention 2
extensions to gdalinfo that make use of the new API :
* a "-listmdd" option that will print the metada
+1
Tamas
2013/10/23 Jürgen E.
> Hi,
>
> I propose a motion to formally adopt RFC 42 : OGR Layer laundered field
> lookup
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc42_find_laundered_fields
>
> There was only a short discussion following the call for discussion:
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/p
+1
Daniel
On 13-10-23 3:16 PM, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote:
Hi,
I propose a motion to formally adopt RFC 42 : OGR Layer laundered field lookup
http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc42_find_laundered_fields
There was only a short discussion following the call for discussion:
http://lists
Looks good to me!
+1 Frank
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Even Rouault wrote:
> Le mercredi 23 octobre 2013 21:16:22, Jürgen E. Fischer a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > I propose a motion to formally adopt RFC 42 : OGR Layer laundered field
> > lookup
> >
> > http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rf
Le mercredi 23 octobre 2013 21:16:22, Jürgen E. Fischer a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I propose a motion to formally adopt RFC 42 : OGR Layer laundered field
> lookup
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc42_find_laundered_fields
+1 Even
--
Geospatial professional services
http://even.rouault.free.
Hi
How to obtain metadta from vector product ?
xav
___
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
Hi Jukka,
> My first vote as PSC member:
>
> +1
I didn't call yet for the formal vote, but thanks for your support.
>
> No doubt the feature will be useful and I trust that RFC is technically
> sound.
>
> I wonder why the list of affected drivers does not include any of the
> JPEG2000 drivers. D
