Mapserver 5 - Terminology clean-up
havard.tveite at UMB.NO
Tue Oct 24 05:27:54 EDT 2006
Steve Lime wrote:
> I agree on 2) since it's somewhat lightly used, and your suggestion makes a lot of sense. However, 1) has been around so long and is so in-grained that it would likely cause more problems than it would solve. Just my opinion.
It is my perception that Mapserver is using sound
terminology throughout. That is why I think it is
important to fix the very few errors that are present.
I would not bother about this if Mapserver had not been
so well made and well documented as it is.
I am exposing my students to Mapserver, and I do not want
its terminology to be a bad example and a source of
1) I am very glad you agree on the TRANSPARENCY / OPACITY
2) I do not think that the "has been around for so long..."
argument is good enough to stop us from correcting
I presume that all map literates will have problems the
first time they try to use MAXSCALE - MINSCALE.
I do not think this is what we want.
AND - by preserving the old as a prefix for the new, we
do not have to break backwards compatibility.
The new keywords will be long. Perhaps they should be
truncated a bit (MAXSCALE_DENOM / MINSCALE_DENOM)?
I hope this is not "end of discussion", as I would very
much like to hear the opinion of others (I hope you are
not totally indifferent).
>>>> Havard Tveite <havard.tveite at UMB.NO> 10/20/06 8:32 AM >>>
> Dear mapserver developers,
> When moving to a new major version, one should take the
> opportunity to do some cleaning up of the terminology
> used in Mapserver.
> I have found two serious terminology "lapses" in
> Mapserver. There may be more.
> 1) MAXSCALE / MINSCALE (LABELMAXSCALE / LABELMINSCALE
> 1:100000 is a smaller scale than 1:1000!
> In Mapserver, however, MAXSCALE/MINSCALE terminology,
> 1:100000 is a larger scale than 1:1000.
> Proposed remedy:
> Change MAXSCALE / MINSCALE to
> MAXSCALE_DENOMINATOR / MINSCALE_DENOMINATOR
> (the same should be done for LABELMAXSCALE/LABELMINSCALE)
> By keeping the old keyword as a suffix of the new, old
> map files could still parse (truncation flexibility).
> I have previously comment on this on
> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/docs/reference/mapfile/layer (2005-07-19 04:17
> 2) TRANSPARENCY (layer)
> This keyword has the opposite meaning of what one would
> I site from the documentation:
> "TRANSPARENCY [integer|alpha]
> ... Although this parameter is named "transparency", the
> integer values actually parameterize layer opacity. A value
> of 100 is opaque and 0 is fully transparent."
> Proposed change:
> Introduce a new keyword OPACITY and "mark" the TRANSPARENCY
> keyword as deprecated (with a link to OPACITY).
> Old map files could still parse by keeping TRANSPARENCY as an
> "alias" for OPACITY.
> By the way... Thank you for your tremendous effort in making
> Mapserver the excellent peace of web mapping software it is
Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, UMB
Drøbakveien 14, POBox 5003, N-1432 Ås, NORWAY
Phone: +47 64965483 Fax: +47 64965401 http://www.umb.no/imt
More information about the mapserver-dev