I second Daniel's response, this makes sense to me.<br><br>Best regards,<br>Bart<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/16/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Daniel Morissette</b> <<a href="mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com">
dmorissette@mapgears.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Frank Warmerdam wrote:<br>><br>> Following up on this, the RFC is at:
<br>><br>> <a href="http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-35">http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-35</a><br>><br>> I would appreciate comment for a day or two and then I will call for a
<br>> vote.<br>><br><br>I understand the STYLES issue is real and needs to be addressed, but I<br>don't like where this is going.<br><br>The RFC is encouraging developers and users to add a bunch of permissive<br>
exceptions in 5.1 and future releases that may not really be needed to<br>achieve interoperability. This would just result in bloating the code<br>and making it more complex and harder to test. BBOX and SIZE may have<br>some defaults in the mapfile, but a GetMap request without them makes
<br>little sense so I would be against making them optional again (even if I<br>used to use GetMap without them a lot myself when testing mapfiles in<br>the past). OTOH, the STYLES option has a logical default stated in the
<br>spec (STYLES=<empty>) and I think we all agree that it would have made<br>sense for STYLES to be optional in the spec in the first place.<br><br>I'd be more in favor of calling the options "pedantic" (with its
<br>negative connotation) and "permissive", with permissive being the<br>default, and for the time being stating in the RFC that STYLES is the<br>only parameter that changes behavior in permissive mode... and that
<br>adding more exceptions in the permissive mode should not be taken<br>lightly as this encourages misuse of the specs and bloats the code with<br>unnecessary exceptions.<br><br>With respect to scanning the WARNINGS in capabilities. At least in the
<br>case of WMS, MapServer should already be producing suitable defaults in<br>addition to the warnings (making the response compliant anyway). If it<br>is not possible to produce a suitable default then an exception is<br>
already issued, so there should be nothing to do on that front, unless<br>WFS or WCS were implemented differently.<br><br>Finally, in case anyone is worried about that, making STYLES optional<br>will not prevent us from getting compliance certification since the CITE
<br>tests do not check whether a server enforces the requirement for the<br>STYLES parameter. That could be why so many servers out there never<br>implemented the requirement for STYLES and so many clients were able to<br>
get away without it.<br><br>Daniel<br>--<br>Daniel Morissette<br><a href="http://www.mapgears.com/">http://www.mapgears.com/</a><br></blockquote></div><br>