On 15/10/15 19:24, Andrea Aime wrote: > Just as a couple of philosophical considerations: > * GeoServer never tried to be OGC's cop, we normally take the approach of > allowing whatever is useful in practice > * Are we sure GML schema implementors are aware of all these little rules, > and that we are not closing the door on invalid but mandated schemas that > might > pop up out there in the field?
The object/property rule is at the heart of the design of GML. Developers of application schemas use tools that enforce it (through the mappings from UML/XMI to XSD). Without it, there is no way to determine the type of objects and properties when parsing SF-1 GML. Nobody is getting a schema through an international standards body like INSPIRE or IUGS without conforming. Anyone violating the rule is not using GML. > Sure, the theoretical right way is to go back to whoever issued the schema > and have it fixed, but that normally results in waits of months and possible > denials to fix the problems I am certain the SWE schemas are fine. This is a major schema developed with the involvement or knowledge of several GML supremos, and I believe, at least one former PSC member. While a slow process, they will most certainly want to know about any defects in their information model or its serialisation. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Stefano's implementation, just that, in his thoroughness, he has included support for mixed content which, if it occurs, indicates the user is doing something very wrong that should never happen with SWE. Kind regards, -- Ben Caradoc-Davies <[email protected]> Director Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/> New Zealand ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoTools-Devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
