App-schema allows clients to use style sheets to deal with responses. (Because its a known schema, a stylesheet can be published and used to render it. I have build clients with catalogues of stylesheets for each feature type - and no way would it be worth bother with ad-hoc flat schemas). We build an entire enterprise content magement, project tracking and time-sheeting system using WFS, and also Local government facilities booking systems based on this, off-theshelf-desktop GIS is the niche market here, compared to business Web applications.
general purpose GIS clients arent particulary useful getFeatureInfo endpoints anyway - enableing actual applications to be built with the services is a higher priority. if the describeFeaturetype response delivers a gml 3 schema, getFeatureInfo should respect that for the same feature types - otherwise how will a client ever know what to trust? IMHO we should use the sub-typing mechanism to override these defaults, and support both text/xml or application/vnd.ogc.gml mime types to be forgiving. Rob On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Andrea Aime <andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Justin Deoliveira <jdeol...@opengeo.org> > wrote: >> Yeah, the mime type for gml output for GetFeatureInfo was not really though >> out with regard to gml versions. "application/vnd.ogc.gml" is ambiguous. >> Ideally choosing the output format would follow the way other output formats >> do it and just use a different mime type. "text/xml; subtype=gml/2.1.2" vs >> "text/xml; subtype=gml/3.1.1", etc... Choosing output format based on >> backend data source could work... albeit a bit tricky. And I think it is >> nicer to be explicit. >> I could also see a configuration option that allowed the admin to control >> whether gml2 or gml3 is used for the "application/vnd.ogc.gml" mime type. > > Sigh, tricky issue, sounds like we're going to get screwed some way or the > other. > > WMS 1.1 was created when only GML2 was around, I guess that's the > reason why they did not bother to specify the version (did GML1 ever > see the light of day?). > > Wondering what's the practice in the wild? Afaik given than mime type > everybody is going to expect GML2, never seen it done differently. > > WMS 1.3 does not even provide a mime type guidance for feature type > info afaik (and even for WMS 1.1 it was a set of suggestions, but they > did stick with implemetations), you are just free to do whatever you > want. > > Whoever is using complex features today is breaking new grounds anyways, > meaning it's dealing with custom written clients, the out of the box > ones more often than not cannot deal with them. > > The configuration idea might work, but what I've seen in practice > is that servers providing complex features are either working > in an academic or niche setup, or they have to provide both > complex features and then flat views of the former that provide > a simple feature interface to the same data (the first to abide to > a standard, the latter to actually be usable by the most common > OGC clients). > Going out with GML3 might please > the few that root for complex features but will break all > other clients. At the very least the choice should be per > layer, not per server, so that the setup that try to compromise > between complex features and common needs can still > work. > > My suggestion: create an explicitly mime type for GML2 and GML3 > and let the old mime type be used for what it has always been > used, that is, GML2. Don't go break established expectations, > spec may be ambigous, but industry practice does not look like > it is. At least, as far as I know. Glad to be proved wrong: what server > is returning GML3 out of a GetFeatureInfo when the request > says application/vnd.ogc.gml? What WMS clients can actually > deal with GML3 as a feature info response? > > Cheers > Andrea > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Ing. Andrea Aime > Senior Software Engineer > > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > Italy > > phone: +39 0584962313 > fax: +39 0584962313 > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/ > http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime > http://twitter.com/geowolf > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports > standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. > Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great > experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today > http://p.sf.net/sfu/msIE9-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-devel mailing list > geotools-de...@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today http://p.sf.net/sfu/msIE9-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
