Vote on RFC 26
Stephen Woodbridge
woodbri at SWOODBRIDGE.COM
Thu Jul 12 10:29:54 EDT 2007
+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...
>
>
More information about the mapserver-dev
mailing list