[Mapserver-inspire] MapServer and INSPIRE

[Guillaume Sueur]

+1 as well. That gives us a bit of time to raise some fundings...

Guillaume

Le 18/04/11 12:02, Angelos Tzotsos a écrit :
> +1 for Daniel's suggestion for official support in v6.2
>
> This will give us some more time to work on the other requirements of
> the latest INSPIRE document (v3.0)
>
> http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Network_Services/TechnicalGuidance_ViewServices_v3.0.pdf
>
>
> Regards,
> Angelos
>
> On 04/18/2011 05:58 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>> On 11-04-16 03:08 PM, Martin Kofahl wrote:
>>> Thanks to James, I could easily extend the GetCapabilities output for
>>> scenario 1 and focused on multi-language support for now. We could
>>> take advantage of MapServer variable substitution from url.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at
>>> http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/3608#comment:11
>>>
>>
>> I see that you raised priority on the ticket, possibly in the hope
>> that we can fit this in 6.0? This caught the attention of the release
>> manager. ;-)
>>
>> Unfortunately I think it's too late to put this in 6.0 and this should
>> be pushed to 6.2. Note that there are talks of doing a 6.2 in the
>> summer (definitely before FOSS4G) so the delay would not be too long.
>> In the meantime users who require this level of INSPIRE support could
>> apply the patch locally, but there are a few reasons why I think we
>> should wait until 6.2 for the official release of this code:
>>
>> 1- We are way past the 6.0 feature freeze and this is clearly a new
>> feature and not a bug fix
>>
>> 2- Unless I'm mistaken, this patch addresses only a subset of the
>> INSPIRE requirements and may not be compatible with a more complete
>> solution that would come in 6.2 to more widely address INSPIRE
>> requirements (what this mapserver-inspire group needs to work on)...
>> what I mean is that once something like this is released, it will be
>> nearly impossible to take it out, so I'd rather wait until we have a
>> solid solution instead of putting something in that we may have to
>> take back out later.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>
>