On 12/15/05, Gerry Creager N5JXS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm getting in late on this, but what're the chances of using GML for > this functionality instead of trying to roll our own? GML's already OGC > recognized. Done right, it could cover most of the "stuff" we're > interested in, and could be readily extended (and OGC ratified, > probably) if we needed to.
Gerry, I think it would be wrong to try and make the mapfile itself be a proper GML document. A map is not a feature, so why force it to be? However, one could make the case that inline features ought to be expressed in GML if we had an XML format mapfile. I'm not sure *I* would be the one to make that case, but it could be made. Best regards, -- ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
