MS-RFC-35 - Solving the WMS STYLES parameter issue

[Bart van den Eijnden]

Tom,

I was thinking the same thing last week.

Why introduce a mechanism which can be misused in the future, if it
can be as simple as making styles optional again.

Best regards,
Bart

On Nov 14, 2007 1:26 PM, Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]
<Tom.Kralidis at ec.gc.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One final thought here :) would it be easier to revert to making STYLES
> an optional parameters rather than introduce a new user directive, given
> that STYLES= will be optional in the future?
>
> ..Tom
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: UMN MapServer Developers List
> > [mailto:MAPSERVER-DEV at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On Behalf Of Daniel Morissette
> > Sent: 02 November, 2007 10:22 AM
> > To: MAPSERVER-DEV at LISTS.UMN.EDU
> > Subject: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] MS-RFC-35 - Solving the WMS
> > STYLES parameter issue
> >
> > MapServer Dev's,
> >
> > I have updated MS-RFC-35
> > (http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-35)
> > based on what I proposed in the exchange we had on the
> > initial RFC draft from Frank a little while ago and which
> > seemed to be an acceptable compromise:
> >
> > "I'd be more in favor of calling the options "pedantic" (with
> > its negative connotation) and "permissive", with permissive
> > being the default, and for the time being stating in the RFC
> > that STYLES is the only parameter that changes behavior in
> > permissive mode... and that adding more exceptions in the
> > permissive mode should not be taken lightly as this
> > encourages misuse of the specs and bloats the code with
> > unnecessary exceptions."
> >
> > Can you please review the RFC and comment and/or tell us if
> > the new approach sounds acceptable to you?
> >
> > If we can have consensus on this issue then we could vote to
> > adopt the RFC, implement the fix and try to release 5.0.1 in
> > the next week or so.
> >
> > Daniel
> > --
> > Daniel Morissette
> > http://www.mapgears.com/
> >
>