Hello, On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:04:48 +0100 Martin Vonwald <[email protected]> wrote:
> But now I'm curious how MapCSS will further develop. If each MapCSS > renderer implements extensions on its own I'm afraid it will lead to > JOSM-MapCSS, Halcyon-MapCSS, Potlatch-MapCSS, ... and we will end up > with a lot of incompatible style sheets. This reminds me of the > internet just a few years ago and (I think I can speak for the > majority here) we definitively don't want to go back there. Well, I haven't been involved in MapCSS development lately, but took some part in the beginning of 0.2 and helped to develop it, and one of its parsers, now unused unfortunately. I'm not particularly happy with what's happening with MapCSS. It's understandable when certain software doesn't implement some features, as sometimes there may be technical or other obstacles for that. When features are implemented a very different way, or implemented without priop discussions, this leads to chaos. And that's what we have now. In my opinion, JOSM implements MapCSS in a very bad way, and its extensions are extremly non-systematic and against the spirit of CSS-like languages at all and MapCSS in particular. Function naming is very strange and is not easily readable. I think that it's a good time to put all information about various extensions into one big table and try to unify and systematise them. -- WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mapcss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/mapcss
