On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:12:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would just love to click open and see something nice, specially if > someone has already taken the time to make it beautiful. > > Think of it as the output of a word processor instead of an editor. > Excel vs. VisiCalc; and the list may go on forever. > > All this is to say: not only the data needs a better container, the maps > as well.
A data format is not a 'container' for maps, it's a container for data. The container for your maps should be something like WMC (though I don't know if it makes sense off the web): grouping together datasources and SLD and the like. The first half of the things you identified: > - optional space for metadata, > - optional thumnails (in 2 sizes: thumb and browse) > - optional embeded symbols (truetype/svg glyphs) and prefered layout > - optional coloring and styles, break values, rendering and > scale limits, persistent joins or relates, color ramp, ... are things which are provided by SLD and the like, which means that you really want SDF + WMC -- I don't think that this is SDF's job, and I don't think that it should be the job of any geodata format. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss