Vote on RFC 26

[Stephen Woodbridge]

+1

I'm good either way on the queryable thing, but lets get other changes 
done and committed. That would include the PATTERN vs STYLE in the SYMBOLs.

-Steve W

Daniel Morissette wrote:
> +1 on RFC-26 with the caveat that the old keywords should either produce 
> a fatal parsing error or a msDebug() warning (level 1) to encourage 
> users to upgrade. This was discussed in the thread and supported by at 
> least myself and SteveW but never made it in the RFC. Something like:
> 
> "Keyword TRANSPARENCY has been renamed OPACITY in MapServer 5.0. Please 
> update your mapfile."
> 
> About the queryable thing, let's forget about that for now and 
> concentrate on the scale and opacity issues.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
>