On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
wrote:
> On 13/11/10 00:03, Andrea Aime wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Justin Deoliveira
>> wrote:
>>> All in all in my opinion for wfs 2.0 we should adopt the "approved" urn
>>> syntax. Well that is of course until it gets changed
On 13/11/10 00:03, Andrea Aime wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
>> All in all in my opinion for wfs 2.0 we should adopt the "approved" urn
>> syntax. Well that is of course until it gets changed again without any
>> notice.
I have a PowerPoint from Peter Vreta
Welcome to _my_ nightmare :-)!
There is a lot, a LOT, of debate at the moment about optimal form of
identifiers - see the UK Location Strategy for example. EPSG as an
entity no longer exists - making things fun...
I think we can only cope by addressing the reality - the concept we
are identifying
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
> > Welcome to my nightmare :)
> > I have been working with the cite group about this issue because the new
> > versions of the cite tests require the urn:ogc syntax. But of courze
>
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Welcome to my nightmare :)
> I have been working with the cite group about this issue because the new
> versions of the cite tests require the urn:ogc syntax. But of courze
> geoserver uses the version that was originally mandated by the
Welcome to my nightmare :)
I have been working with the cite group about this issue because the new
versions of the cite tests require the urn:ogc syntax. But of courze
geoserver uses the version that was originally mandated by the tests
(urn:x-ogc).
At some point someone decided to file an issue
v...@csiro ha scritto:
> Hi, I am quite new to GeoServer and would like to ask how does geoserver
> determine the srsName?
> I made the request without specifying the srsName
>
> I have the following mapping
>
>
> sa:samplingLocation
>
>
