Should PROJJSON be used rather than "text" WKT2 for CRS while awaiting an official JSON encoding from CRS SWG?

In 2DTMS we have taken this approach and include the PROJJSON schema with a note that in the future this may be changed to whichever JSON encoding OGC comes up with per the CRS SWG work item on this topic.

See note in https://docs.opengeospatial.org/DRAFTS/17-083r4.html#tms-json-encoding :

NOTE: This Standard adopts the https://proj.org/specifications/projjson.html encoding, pending a resolution in the CRS group for adopting a possible future JSON encoding for WKT for CRS 2.0

Having part of the content all encoded in a (text WKT2) string makes it more difficult to parse the data and cannot be defined / validated with the overall schema, and would look odd and be difficult to use by people not familiar with WKT2.

Start with the issue's 2DTMS note, the PROJJSON schema, and the linked CRS SWG work item. Compare the current CoverageJSON CRS representation with that precedent and determine whether the specification should adopt PROJJSON or retain text WKT2 pending the CRS decision. Done means the encoding choice and its schema and validation implications are resolved and documented.