Please add your specific list of current non-compliant issue to: http://hub.qgis.org/issues/6520
I'll add in a note about the WMS 1.3 tags specifically created for non-standard features. I think this issue can be resolved. Thanks, Alex On 06/07/2014 01:17 PM, Alex Mandel wrote: > On 06/07/2014 01:06 PM, Andrea Peri wrote: >> Yes also this is possible, >> but pay attention to use it correctly. >> I guess it is no really simple to use (ie to define the extension). > > It looks really simple to use according to the docs. If it works and > cascading WMS works with other WMS servers, and it passes the schema > check I see no issue. > > >> In the SLD world this was allowed and a unfortunately and worst >> understanding of it will born a lot of incompatible dialects. >> Also in the metadata world (iso19115) the possibility to extend the specs >> will produce incompatibility monster. >> :) > This exists in the html world, over time there are winners. If you don't > care to use the extra features you are always welcome to use the base > which is 100% compliant. The winners or some compromise variant end up > in the next version of the spec. > >> I guess surely better and easy is put the new functions in in a distinct >> and new kind of request. >> > > After reading the WMS doc I believe using the tags I mention is the > correct way to do it. Technically the result is WMS 1.3.0 compliant. > Clients are free to ignore the extra functions as not using them does > not remove any required features. > > As to why fund it? If QGIS provides other value to your organization in > some other way, total cost of operation may be lower to simply ensure > it's compliant rather than to switch software or have to use multiple > software. > > Thanks, > Alex > > >> Andrea. >> >> >> >> 2014-06-07 21:56 GMT+02:00 Alex Mandel <tech_...@wildintellect.com>: >> >>> I just checked the WMS 1.3.0 specification document >>> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=14416 >>> >>> Extended optional features are allowed. There is a specific way to >>> include them. See section 6.9.5 "Extended capabilities and operations" >>> <_ExtendedCapabilities> or <_ExtendedOperations> >>> >>> So perhaps we just need to wrap those extra options in a specific tag >>> for them to pass schema testing. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Alex >>> >>> On 06/07/2014 12:35 PM, Alex Mandel wrote: >>>> I understand the issue now. In order to be WMS 1.3 complaint you can >>>> only use what's in the spec. >>>> >>>> Looking at an analogy with html specs I find this limitation appalling >>>> short-sighted. It means there can be no innovation testing new features >>>> with the spec unless you manage to get it into the future spec. I find >>>> it hard to comprehend that clients don't just skip tags that fail to >>>> match a known tag. In html land its very common for some browsers to >>>> know some non-standard tags, which are new features in testing to be >>>> proposed or reworked into future standards. IE's policy of only adhering >>>> to the spec and including no experimental tag support has been seen be >>>> web designers as discouraging to any change. Why, because their is no >>>> way to publicly test new ideas. >>>> >>>> So from the QGIS side, in order to comply we would need to reply with >>>> only allowed tags if a user requests WMS=1.3.0, we can reply with more >>>> stuff like GetPrint if they don't specify that version. Or perhaps we >>>> have to invent a 1.3.0+ variant specifically for when a user knows it's >>>> QGIS server. >>>> >>>> Anyone more familiar with WMS that can shed more light on the best way >>>> to work around this issue and have both compliance and the ability to >>>> add extra features that have no standard equivalent yet. >>>> >>>> My point still stands, that EU agencies with this concern should be >>>> funding compliance efforts, not removing funding for lack of compliance. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alex >>>> >>>> On 06/07/2014 12:23 PM, Andrea Peri wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> I need to be more clear. >>>>> My english is tremendous. >>>>> :) >>>>> >>>>> The Interoperability mean to have a small set of operation euals on >>> EVERY >>>>> Server WMS. >>>>> >>>>> Equals mena same reqeust , same response. >>>>> >>>>> So when a Cleit WMS send a Request of GetCapabilities, The response >>> should >>>>> be the same from QGIS-server or from GeoServer or From Mapserver. >>>>> >>>>> The same response mean that every product use the same dialect the same >>>>> tags and so on. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The XSD OGC is the dictionary that every wms client and server should >>> use >>>>> to know the right language and tags. >>>>> >>>>> When the QGIS_Server response to a request GetCapbility with an XML that >>>>> contains the GetPrint tags. >>>>> The client wms say "hey what is this ? It is not in the XSD OGC. This >>> mean >>>>> your response is wrong." >>>>> >>>>> Of course there are some client wms that don0t do a validation of >>> response, >>>>> they HOPE that the response will be exactly as they exected. >>>>> If this is not true. They go in crash or other bad situation. >>>>> >>>>> Again the resence of a Tag not compliant with XSD OGC will create >>>>> incompatibility. >>>>> >>>>> Think to a client that will parse the xml response and say: >>>>> >>>>> ok the GetLegendGraphics tag is passed now there is "this well know >>> tag". >>>>> >>>>> Instead arrive a GetPrint tags. >>>>> >>>>> The client wms become crazy. >>>>> >>>>> Of course QGIS will understand it. >>>>> But this is because you (qgis group) manage it to work. >>>>> >>>>> But other clients don't know that tag and so they are not able to >>> extract >>>>> all the information from Capabilities response. >>>>> This is a bad practice also because create artiiciosally an >>> incopatibility >>>>> with other products. >>>>> Instead Inspire ask for INteroperability from every product. >>>>> >>>>> Interoperability don't mean use all the same unique product. (This is >>> the >>>>> microsoft philosophy) >>>>> Interoperability mean All the product must use the same little set of >>>>> command and the response at these command should be compatible >>>>> (interoperable) between all of them >>>>> >>>>> Actulally this is not true for the response xml of qgis-server at a >>>>> getcapability request. >>>>> >>>>> Hope to be better explain, now. >>>>> >>>>> Andrea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-06-07 20:49 GMT+02:00 Andrea Peri <aperi2...@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>> The question is not the print capability. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question is to LOST THE INTEROPERABILITY >>>>>> >>>>>> If qgis response an xml that is not OGC complaint it is not >>> interoperable >>>>>> with other product. >>>>>> >>>>>> As example: >>>>>> >>>>>> if an public Administration will eed to do a cascading wms with the >>> server >>>>>> wms of another public administration. >>>>>> The server before of all call for a GetCapability. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the response has a tag proprietary. If fail. >>>>>> This need Not Interoperable. >>>>>> >>>>>> I dont say do not do a getprint. >>>>>> >>>>>> I say remove tha tag GetPrint from the GetCapabilities response. >>>>>> It is not a OGC tag and so that response is not interoperable as >>> requested >>>>>> from Inspire specification. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-06-07 20:36 GMT+02:00 Alex Mandel <tech_...@wildintellect.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 06/07/2014 11:19 AM, Andrea Peri wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> AFAIK the qgis server is not complaint with Inspire. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This beacausethe Response to GetCapabilities is not responding to the >>>>>>>> requisite that the OGC will require for it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Originally the qgis was simply generate an incompatible response for >>> the >>>>>>>> XSD of OGC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The response is ncompatible for thre thinks: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) the GetCapabilities is in the wrong namespace. >>>>>>>> This is a silly question anc could be easily resolved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) >>>>>>>> The presence of the GetStyle that is dismissed from OGC wms 1.3.0. >>>>>>>> Please notice that the Inspire require the WMS 1.3.0 . >>>>>>>> To resolve this the QGIS groups has copied the XSD of OGC and >>> modifica >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> to redirect to a different XSD not in the OGC site. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3) The presence of a Proprietary tag inserted without any reference >>> to >>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> standard. >>>>>>>> The GetPrint. >>>>>>>> This is not present in any other product. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My question is for any person of a Public Administration that plan or >>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> funding QGIS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In Europe the Inspire directive will ask to promove the >>>>>>> Interoperability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The interoperability strategy ask that every produc that allow the >>>>>>> inspire >>>>>>>> directive will speak the same language using the same tags and >>>>>>>> functionality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The QGIS solution to add a proprietary tag and to write a own >>> different >>>>>>> xsd >>>>>>>> that overlap the standard OGC xsd will create the presuppost (AFAIK) >>> to >>>>>>>> vilate the Inspire directive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If this is true A Public Administration should not use the QGIS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a realproblem for us that invest many fund on qgis. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I like toknow the opinion of other public administration. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Before still fund a product that seem to violate the Inspire >>> directive >>>>>>>> principles. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thx, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To me the question is flipped. What needs to be funded, probably by EU >>>>>>> agencies to ensure INSPIRE compliance of QGIS Server? >>>>>>> It looks like you've put together the list of what needs to be fixed, >>> so >>>>>>> the target should be easier. I am little puzzled about not allowing >>> for >>>>>>> extra functions that are not in the standard. Unless the WMS has a >>> print >>>>>>> standard an extra print add-on doesn't break any expectations. Who >>>>>>> knows, maybe that should be submitted as an extension to WMS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note, this should have no effect on funding and usage of QGIS desktop. >>>>>>> Maybe Paolo has good numbers on if EU agencies are funding Server vs >>>>>>> Desktop features. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Qgis-user mailing list >> qgis-u...@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user >> > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer