RFC 6 - Whatever happened to this?

[Stephen Woodbridge]

Steve,

I think this is pretty well documented between the bug and the RFC 6

   http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/1305
   http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-6/

It seems to have ended up with people asking for some changes to make 
color ramps named, reusable and to describe more complex ramps and I'm 
not sure anything more than a mock up was done for the legend.

I think the RFC pretty accurately reflects the bulk of the direction and 
changes that people were looking for, at least as much as I can remember.

-Steve W

Steve Lime wrote:
> First place to start would be documenting what's been done and where the discussions
> left things when the RFC was developed.
> 
> Steve
> 
>>>> Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at SWOODBRIDGE.COM> 04/17/07 9:09 AM >>>
> Steve Lime wrote:
>> Frank is correct, there is something implemented (there is a
>> RANGEITEM and such). Bill Binko did hint at wanting to pick this up
>> again for 5.0 back when I was fishing around for a feature list.
>> Hopefully he's reading this thread and can comment further.
> 
> Bill replied to me directly. He has not been working with mapserver in a 
> while. I think he might be willing to talk to anyone that wants to pick 
> this up, but I'm not sure we should expect him to do it at this point in 
> time.
> 
> -Steve
> 
>> Steve
>>
>>>>> Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at POBOX.COM> 04/16/07 7:37 PM >>>
>> On 4/17/07, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at swoodbridge.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Whatever happened to RFC6: Color Range Mapping of Continuous
>>> Feature Values? Did this die on the vine? I seem to remember it
>>> maybe got implemented but not documented or released officially. It
>>> was last edited: 2005-11-10 and is status: Proposed
>>>
>>> Should this be included in the Rev 5.0 plans? I was going to check
>>> bug #1305, but bugzilla is down.
>> Steve,
>>
>> I believe a version of it is implemented but not necessarily well 
>> documented. I think the RFC process for this broke down due to the
>> variety of ideas on how it ought to be done, exausting the proposer.
>> I'm sure I was part of the problem!
>>
>> I would like to see this picked back up, polished and addressed, but
>> it will really require someone to take ownership.
>>
>> Best regards,