Hi Richard, Fully support all of your concerns. I was talking about exactly the same to someone at the HF (cannot remember who it was), but it would be great to have it. There is only one thing.. Who is going to do it?
+1 from me for this idea (it would be good for the reputation of QGIS to detect/refuse to work with bogus data) regards Werner On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Tom Chadwin <[email protected]> wrote: > A big +1 from me. Thanks, Richard. The performance penalty can be mitigated > by making the checks optional. > > Tom > > > > ----- > Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon > -- > View this message in context: > http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Communicating-Data-problems-issued-to-the-users-tp5319021p5319032.html > Sent from the QGIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
