Voting on RFC 9.

[Stephen Woodbridge]

Steve Lime wrote:
> I've got an idea that might kill two birds with one stone. We could
> consider using the MapServer parser. That is, add some functions like
> commify, uc, lc, substr, replace to the bison grammar. Then one could
> write full-blown expressions for both labeling and template output.
> You'd still need an item tag but the format would be an expression
> similar to what you see with TEXT...

Steve,

I like the idea of implement once and use everywhere. This is less work 
AND it makes for a much more consist user experience because the rules 
for how to use the mapserver become more consistent, rather than 
explaining that they are different for historical reasons, and we can 
change then NOW without breaking backwards compatibility :)

-Steve W.

> Steve
> 
> 
>>>> Tamas Szekeres <szekeres.tamas at FREEMAIL.HU> 01/31/06 5:17 PM
>>>> >>>
> 
> Please consider
> 
> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1634
> 
> as a potential candidate to RFC9
> 
> Tamas
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:03:15 -0700, Sean Gillies <sgillies at FRII.COM>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-9/
>> 
>> +0 from me. I think your/our time is better spent making mapscript 
>> better and using mapscript with existing Perl/Python/PHP templating
>>  packages, but you know that already. For C, there is Clearsilver
>> 
>> http://www.clearsilver.net/
>> 
>> Maybe a switch to something like clearsilver would be a good 5.0 
>> feature.
>> 
>> Sean
>> 
>> On Jan 30, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Steve Lime wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> So far only one +1 (me), and one +0 (Frank). I've got this ready
>>> to go = into 4.9 with one more thumbs up. Anyone?
>>> 
>>> I'd like to get it committed and move on to something else.
>>> 
>>> Steve
> 
>