Hi list, maybe it's a bit too late to startup this discussion, but anyway, I think the name Format.WFST is a bit misleading, and I would prefer Format.WFS. It's misleading since it implies only transactional stuff, but Format.WFST also writes out stuff for non-transactional requests, such as GetFeature.
If you look at the OGC spec, you'll see that the term WFS-T (or WFST) is not even an official name. The WFS spec has basic (read-only) and transactional parts and that is exactly what this format implements, so Format.WFS is more logical to me. What do others think? Best regards, Bart _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
