Justin Deoliveira ha scritto: > Jody Garnett wrote: >> That is a tough one, I need to ask if this is another cite test stepping >> outside of the bounds of the ordinary (ie what is defined by the WFS >> specification)? > No, its perfectly valid in wfs to have a feature type with multiple > geometries. WFS defines the "default geometry" as being up to calling > service to define. I could probably make a case on the cite list and > argue that this test is invalid, since as the calling service we cannot > figure out which is the valid "default" geometry.
I would go this route. The test seems ill defined to me? Cheers Andrea ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
