Hello, On 5 March 2013 14:02, Martin Vonwald <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:04:48 +0100 >> 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 >> prior discussions, this leads to chaos. And that's what we have now.
> I guess that one of the reasons for this "chaos" is the slow (or not > at all) progress in the MapCSS specification. Tagging is evolving fast > and we need much more sophisticated rendering possibilities. It's slow because nobody's doing it. When I say nobody I mean 0 (zero, naught) persons. If a discussion started, some progress would be visible. >> 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. > Maybe it is a "very bad way" but at least it is a way. Pure MapCSS has > no way at all for such monstrous styles like mine. Sure, as nobody (zero people) has asked for those features. No proposals, no discussions, nothing. Just work behind closed doors. >> 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. > Here we agree. But - and that's a big but - how intend you to get all > developers of MapCSS renderers on one table and agree on a new, > improved specification? And preferable not until 2016 but until - lets > say - end of march? That's the real problem here. Why not? This is an open mailing list, everyone's free to start the discussion. -- WBR, Andrew _______________________________________________ Mapcss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/mapcss
