Vote on RFC 26

[Pericles S. Nacionales]

I had to quickly read through the RFC to make sure I'm voting for 
something I understand.  This makes sense to me and avoids the confusion 
in using "STYLE" within the CLASS object.  The change in SCALE to 
SCALEDENOM, and TRANSPARENCY to OPACITY also make sense to me.

So, +1 for me. 

-Perry

Steve Lime wrote:
> Anyone care to vote at all on this? I need one more +1 and would love to get it off my plate. Of course, if folks would rather not touch the various scale parameters then fine, less work.
>
> Steve
>
>   
>>>> Steve Lime <Steve.Lime at DNR.STATE.MN.US> 07/09/07 12:15 PM >>>
>>>>         
> Hi all: I noticed that RFC 26 was never voted on. Looks like there was discussion about broadening changes
> as opposed to those proposed (note the TRANSPARENCY => OPACITY switch has already been) made.
>
> Dealing with making layers queryable seemed to be the last issue and there was no resolution as of 5/8 when
> that thread died.
>
> Steve
>
> BTW One last change I'd like to see is removing the STYLE keyword in symbol files in favor of PATTERN...
>