On 21/04/12 00:23, Juan Marín Otero wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Andrea Aime > Yeah... with OGC I already moved thought the whole cycle of > disbelief, anger and quiet acceptance of the situation regardless of > how nonsensical it seems. > This change must have a good reason behind it (I suppose), but it is > going to create a lot of confusion on users. Crazy indeed.
I have it on good authority that the OGC is just as unhappy with this change as developers are. They were able to obtain an extension for over six months. This backwards-incompatible change was chosen as the least-bad option. Remember that OGC is an industry standards body funded by corporate subscriptions. Many corporate members are vendors to the US government, as are many users of GeoServer and GeoTools-based products. In the end, this rather large customer is right. While the manner of how we get there might be unpleasant, we will be left with one internationally accepted XLink specification, and that is a good thing. I have added the announcement text to the Jira issue: https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-4115 -- Ben Caradoc-Davies <[email protected]> Software Engineer CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering Australian Resources Research Centre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
