On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:08:51AM +0100, bart...@osgis.nl wrote: > 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?
We already have an existing Format.WFS that we need to maintain for backwards compatibility. > Best regards, > Bart > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > Dev@openlayers.org > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
