[OSGeo-Standards] WMS-C and Capabilities

Jody Garnett jgarnett at refractions.net
Tue Aug 26 14:53:33 EDT 2008

This discussion is fascinating to me as it does not align with my 
expectations ... my expectation is that this
WMS-C documents some additional vendor specific capabilities that are 
added to an existing WMS (much like SLD support is added to an existing 

As such I am expecting to see a WMS with vendor specific capabilities 
letting me know that some TileSets are available; and that if I call the 
existing GetMap operation in just the right way I can make use of it.

So I was not expecting to see a standalone TileCache.

Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>> I did not explain myself. I do not mean to say the capabilities document
>> should be partial or anything, I just mean the client cannot expect
>> a tiling server to answer any kind of request like a WMS would do.
>> The capabilities document is an extension all right, but the behaviour
>> is a restriction, only certain GetMap requests will be answered, no?
>> Put in other words, the caps document is based on WMS, but the tiling
>> server is not a valid WMS server, right?
> In the general case that's true, but that's not required. TileCache with
> PIL could certainly answer non-tiled requests, I just don't care to make
> it do so. (Similarly, TileCache has no reprojection capabilities,
> because I've said that it shouldn't, I expect.)   
> Regards,

More information about the Standards mailing list