On Jan 24, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:55:51PM +0100, SteveC wrote: >> >> On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:06 PM, R E Sieber wrote: >> >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> Can someone point me to the definitive critiques of wfs and wms? >> >> The spec is 184 pages long for WFS. So rather than read it, OSM was born. > > But you used HTTP, which has a 114 page spec? Why didn't you reinvent > that while you were at it?
Because HTTP is built in to basically everything and is a tool, but back then there were basically no WFS implementations for either client or server, and those that existed were pretty flaky. > That said, for managing read-write of simple-features to a server, > there isn't anything else that I'm aware of, so whether it's good or > bad, it is what people use. (OSM doesn't use anything resembling > Simple Features, so that isn't a counter-point; it is solving an > interesting, but different, problem.) That's not at all how people felt back then. Yours &c. Steve _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
