WMS GetFeatureInfo output formats

[Paul Ramsey]

Hmmm, this is going to be less useful than I thought. The old ArcIMS WMS 
extended actually advertised "ARCXML" as a return type, which would have 
been very handy. The new one advertises "text/xml", which is less useful 
as a MIME type.

http://gisdata.usgs.net/servlet19/com.esri.wms.Esrimap/USGS_EDC_National_Atlas?Request=GetFeatureInfo&QUERY_LAYERS=ATLAS_STATES&VERSION=1.1.1&WIDTH=100&HEIGHT=100&BBOX=-149.133392830226,35.6746917523835,-45.788208504046,49.3980488024172&SRS=EPSG:4326&INFO_FORMAT=text/xml&X=50&Y=50

Paul

Kralidis,Tom [Burlington] wrote:

> Would you have some comparison of ArcXML vs. current WMS GetFeatureInfo
> XML response?  I'd be interested to see what can be gained here, as
> opposed to adding another format.
> 
> ..Tom
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Paul Ramsey [mailto:pramsey at refractions.net] 
>>Sent: Monday, 20 June, 2005 12:14
>>To: Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]
>>Cc: MAPSERVER-DEV at LISTS.UMN.EDU; Mark Leslie
>>Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] WMS GetFeatureInfo output formats
>>
>>
>>Using GML 2.1 would allow uDig to consume the results a 
>>little easier... 
>>so I would like that :)
>>On an unrelated note, would anyone object to our adding ArcXML as an 
>>output format for GetFeatureInfo? It is actually the best fit for 
>>Mapservers internal data structures, and is already advertised by a 
>>large number of "WMS" servers :)
>>Paul
>>
>>Kralidis,Tom [Burlington] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now that WFS GetFeature responses are valid XML for both GML2 and 
>>>GML3L0 (good work Steve!), and given bug 
>>>http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=801, this 
>>
>>might be a 
>>
>>>good time to clean up WMS GetFeatureInfo to produce valid 
>>
>>XML.  Having 
>>
>>>said this, should we also provide finer grained MIME types for 
>>>supported GetFeatureInfo, i.e.:
>>>
>>>application/vnd.ogc.gml
>>>application/vnd.ogc.gml3l0
>>>
>>>...or should we just cite application/vnd.ogc.gml and use GML3 from 
>>>here on in.  Interested in people's comments on this one.
>>>
>>>..Tom
>>
>