Hi Jens, Yes, wfs 1.1 maintains compatibility via gml2, however, the spec defines gml3 as the default, which means that clients have to start asking for gml2 explicitly, and I would guess that many probably don't.
Also, there is a minor difference in the gml3 GetFeature output. And it is the use of gml:id as opposed to fid for feature ids. -Justin Jens Stutte wrote: > On 2 Nov 2006 at 8:04, Paul Ramsey wrote: > >> Jens, >> >> The WFS client code (most of it, anyways) resides in the Geotools >> code base. The main issue with moving to WFS 1.1 is not the WFS 1.1 >> specification, it's the GML 3.1.1 specification. So if you're >> interested in helping, hop over the the geotools side of the fence >> and start talking there about what needs to be done for GML 3.1.1 >> support. Some of it is already being done by the geoserver team >> (working in the geotools code base (we really should have a simple >> architecture diagram at the top of our developers page)) for an >> opengis project they are on right now. But it is a limited subset of >> GML3. >> >> Sorry to give you a research project when all you wanted was a simple >> answer! >> >> P > > Hi Paul, > > some research on the server side (deegree-devel list) led to the following: > > <snip> > /Hello Jens,/ > / > / > /Jens Stutte schrieb:/ > /> the WFS 1.1 spec defines for backwards compatibility as possible > ouputFormat GML 2.1.2 / > /> and 3.1.1 (see for example: page 48 of 04-094 Web Feature Service > Implementation / > /> Specification_V1.1.pdf). As far as I can see in current deegree > examples, only GML 3.1.1 is / > /> used. Is it possible to "downgrade" the WFS to use GML 2.1.2? Would > it be very hard to / > /> implement this?/ > /> / > /Actually, the WFS GML output does not use anything that is special to / > /GML 3. The GetFeature-reponses from the WFS should be valid GML 2 as > well.../ > /> The use would be, to create a "simple" XML transformation between WFS > 1.0 and WFS 1.1 / > /> requests and responses in order to be able to implement a fully > backwards compatible WFS. / > /> / > /Yes, this could be realized as a proxy server for example./ > / > / > /Best regards,/ > /Markus S./ > </snip> > > If this is true, why not realize (as a temporary hack) "proxied" WFS 1.1 > support on the client side inside uDig? With some XSLT you should be > done - not very performant, but at least it would work. Just to get a > step ahead without being blocked by others... > > Best regards, > > Jens > > > > > !DSPAM:1004,454f4af2176681425493344! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig) > http://udig.refractions.net > http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel > > > !DSPAM:1004,454f4af2176681425493344! -- Justin Deoliveira The Open Planning Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig) http://udig.refractions.net http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
