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

[Daniel Morissette]

Tom, Bart,

I'd be fine with that since I don't currently see a need for any other 
exception except this STYLES issue.

We could close RFC-35 as rejected and reopen the day we need to deal 
with other exceptions, if that day ever comes.

Before we make the final decision let's see what others RFC members 
think. If there is general support to just make STYLES optional and drop 
RFC-35 then I'll make a new motion to that effect in a few days.

Daniel


Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
> 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/
>>>


-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/