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

Stephen Woodbridge woodbri at SWOODBRIDGE.COM
Wed Nov 14 14:20:05 EST 2007


I'm +0 on this, either way you go. I'm not that familiar with this 
problem and from what I have read either seems fine. I would lean more 
toward a keep it simple approach ie to make STYLES= optional because it 
seems that that is the direction the spec is going anyway. Also, I think 
that one of the things that makes mapserver so strong in the community 
is the fact that it is "permissive"? as in works well (can be made to 
work well) with most clients and servers. However we can support and 
strengthen this point, I think would be great.


Daniel Morissette wrote:
> 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> 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
>>>> Subject: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] MS-RFC-35 - Solving the WMS
>>>> STYLES parameter issue
>>>> MapServer Dev's,
>>>> I have updated 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

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list