The EPSG Contract

[Daniel Morissette]

Paul Ramsey wrote:
>
> And if we want to follow the direction of the standards bodies (ISO,
> OGC) then we should do the work ASAP, because the longer implementations
> with broken contracts are out there, the more bifurcated and
> non-interoperable the whole "geoweb" is going to get.
>
> Thoughts, concerns, etc?
>

I agree that this EPSG vs WMS 1.3 issue is a big mess, it has generated
lots of very passionate reactions and discussions... please don't get me
going on it.  :)

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that MapServer broken in any way at
the moment with its WMS 1.1.x and WFS 1.0.0 implementeations? I am one
of those who had a "we're not going there (WMS 1.3)" reaction... not
going there until we really have to anyway, and since WMS 1.3 brings
nothing new that WMS 1.1.1 didn't have, I see no need to go there. As
you replied to me on related topic before: what would that investment
give me that I don't have already?  ;)

Anyway, if something is plain broken according to the OGC specs then
we'll look at it and fix it. Otherwise, my plan was to procrastinate
until we are forced to support WMS 1.3, or until the problem goes away
by itself in a future WMS revision (my secret hope).

Daniel
--
------------------------------------------------------------
  Daniel Morissette               dmorissette at dmsolutions.ca
  DM Solutions Group              http://www.dmsolutions.ca/
------------------------------------------------------------