So much for writing a client :P. So since there doesn't seem to be a
defacto standard between the other servers I suggest that we make our
implementation as close to the spec as we can. And Jody's suggestion
about a blog isn't a bad one. I don't expect that we can embarrass
mapserver int
Pst - Andrea. Why not make a GeoServer blog entry out of this - and get
the issue into a wider area of discourse. At least place it on osgeo
discuss email list.
Cheers,
Jody
> Jesse Eichar ha scritto:
>
>> I've been using SLD 1.0 page 26 for the basis of my research. But
>> I'd like to loo
Jesse Eichar ha scritto:
> I've been using SLD 1.0 page 26 for the basis of my research. But
> I'd like to look at map server as well since it is one of the big Web
> Map Servers out there. If their calculation fits into the spec it
> would be nice to align with them as much as possible. I
Jesse Eichar ha scritto:
> I've been using SLD 1.0 page 26 for the basis of my research. But
> I'd like to look at map server as well since it is one of the big Web
> Map Servers out there. If their calculation fits into the spec it
> would be nice to align with them as much as possible. I
Jesse Eichar ha scritto:
> I've been using SLD 1.0 page 26 for the basis of my research. But
> I'd like to look at map server as well since it is one of the big Web
> Map Servers out there. If their calculation fits into the spec it
> would be nice to align with them as much as possible. I
Jesse Eichar ha scritto:
> I've been using SLD 1.0 page 26 for the basis of my research. But
> I'd like to look at map server as well since it is one of the big Web
> Map Servers out there. If their calculation fits into the spec it
> would be nice to align with them as much as possible. I
I've been using SLD 1.0 page 26 for the basis of my research. But
I'd like to look at map server as well since it is one of the big Web
Map Servers out there. If their calculation fits into the spec it
would be nice to align with them as much as possible. I personally
would like to see t
