Re: [QGIS-Developer] QGIS Server: proposal for small change in GetFeatureInfo response

2017-10-05 Thread Andreas Neumann
Hi Régis, I would prefer to have them disabled by default. It easier to change the two existing web clients than changing any other WMS client out there. After the change in QGIS server (QGIS 3 would make sense for this change), we would have to change LizMap and QWC2. I don't even know if Lizm

Re: [QGIS-Developer] QGIS Server: proposal for small change in GetFeatureInfo response

2017-10-05 Thread Alessandro Pasotti
I think we should stick to the standards as much as possible, vendor params should be optional and disabled by default. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Régis Haubourg wrote: > Hi Andreas, > good point. > > Having two vendor-specific options is ok to me. > What I am wondering is: > > - do we pre

Re: [QGIS-Developer] QGIS Server: proposal for small change in GetFeatureInfo response

2017-10-05 Thread Régis Haubourg
Hi Andreas, good point. Having two vendor-specific options is ok to me. What I am wondering is: - do we prefer to have them displayed by default, and we won't break existing web client - have them hidden by default and we stop surcharging QGIS client identify window. Any opinion? Régis 2017-10

[QGIS-Developer] QGIS Server: proposal for small change in GetFeatureInfo response

2017-10-05 Thread Andreas Neumann
Hi QGIS Server devs and users, I have a small proposal for a change in the QGIS Server GetFeatureInfo reponse. Next to the attributes that are returned for a feature, there are two additional results: * geometry (optional, used for high-lighting in Web-GIS clients) * maptip (u