Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tile Map Service Specification"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* How much of the WMS capabilities metadata do we want to replicate? Some looks interesting, some not. | * How much of the WMS capabilities metadata do we want to replicate? Some looks interesting, some not. | ||
* Does the pre-amble need to be fluffed up a bit with some pictures and diagrams to explain some tiling basics to those not already acquainted (probably). | * Does the pre-amble need to be fluffed up a bit with some pictures and diagrams to explain some tiling basics to those not already acquainted (probably). | ||
| − | * On IRC, mloskot worries that the XML resources might be overly verbose for what they are transmitting. pramsey wonders if, since we have gone this far from the OGC mothership, jettisoning XML altogether for something like json might not be better. | + | * On IRC, mloskot worries that the XML resources might be overly verbose for what they are transmitting. pramsey wonders if, since we have gone this far from the OGC mothership, jettisoning XML altogether for something like json might not be better. ianturton thinks that xml is easier to work with but maybe we can support both? |
Revision as of 12:24, 23 October 2006
Things To Discuss
- This specification is RESTful, but OGC specifications are not. Do we care?
- How much of the WMS capabilities metadata do we want to replicate? Some looks interesting, some not.
- Does the pre-amble need to be fluffed up a bit with some pictures and diagrams to explain some tiling basics to those not already acquainted (probably).
- On IRC, mloskot worries that the XML resources might be overly verbose for what they are transmitting. pramsey wonders if, since we have gone this far from the OGC mothership, jettisoning XML altogether for something like json might not be better. ianturton thinks that xml is easier to work with but maybe we can support both?