Hi Andreas, if Mapserver is using the version attribute for the XMLSchema version, that's a mistake, see:
http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/wfs-dev/2008-December/000523.html Best regards, Bart > Andreas Hocevar wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> With 4) I don't really agree, since 0.1 is a very arbitrary used >>> version >>> by Mapserver. Since it is the version of the application schema, it >>> should >>> not be used at all IMHO. I think the person calling the parser is >>> responsible for putting the version in the constructor, since he also >>> knew >>> the version when doing the DescribeFeatureType request (version is a >>> URL >>> parameter there). I've used this approach in the test cases. What do >>> you >>> think? >>> >>> >> >> Good point. You are right that this 0.1 version is arbitrary, because >> XML Schema is currently at version 1.1 or something. For now, I really >> think you are right that parsing the version attribute is an >> inappropriate way to determine what we have to parse here. So yes, >> omitting the version detection seems ok for now. If we find WFS >> implementations out there that return a completely different schema, we >> will have to cope with this in a different way. >> > > Wait. The "0.1" that Mapserver returns for the version is indeed the > version of the XML Schema. So in fact we should have a > Format.Schema.v0_1 and Format.Schema.v1_0 parser and mix this in for the > WFSDescribeFeatureType parser. > > At least that is how it should be done. For now, your proposal does > definitely make sense, at least until we find some other use case where > we need to parse XML Schema. This can easily be refactored later without > changing the API. > > Regards, > Andreas. > > -- > Andreas Hocevar > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/ > Expert service straight from the developers. > > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
