Ah right, I missed that one. So this is something which can be changed at OL 3.0?
Best regards, Bart > 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
