MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

[Bart van den Eijnden]

I second Daniel's response, this makes sense to me.

Best regards,
Bart

On 10/16/07, Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com> wrote:
>
> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> >
> > Following up on this, the RFC is at:
> >
> >   http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-35
> >
> > I would appreciate comment for a day or two and then I will call for a
> > vote.
> >
>
> I understand the STYLES issue is real and needs to be addressed, but I
> don't like where this is going.
>
> The RFC is encouraging developers and users to add a bunch of permissive
> exceptions in 5.1 and future releases that may not really be needed to
> achieve interoperability. This would just result in bloating the code
> and making it more complex and harder to test. BBOX and SIZE may have
> some defaults in the mapfile, but a GetMap request without them makes
> little sense so I would be against making them optional again (even if I
> used to use GetMap without them a lot myself when testing mapfiles in
> the past). OTOH, the STYLES option has a logical default stated in the
> spec (STYLES=<empty>) and I think we all agree that it would have made
> sense for STYLES to be optional in the spec in the first place.
>
> 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.
>
> With respect to scanning the WARNINGS in capabilities. At least in the
> case of WMS, MapServer should already be producing suitable defaults in
> addition to the warnings (making the response compliant anyway). If it
> is not possible to produce a suitable default then an exception is
> already issued, so there should be nothing to do on that front, unless
> WFS or WCS were implemented differently.
>
> Finally, in case anyone is worried about that, making STYLES optional
> will not prevent us from getting compliance certification since the CITE
> tests do not check whether a server enforces the requirement for the
> STYLES parameter. That could be why so many servers out there never
> implemented the requirement for STYLES and so many clients were able to
> get away without it.
>
> Daniel
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/attachments/20071017/6f70485d/attachment.html