Even Rouault wrote: Selon Jukka Rahkonen <jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi>:
> Jukka, > I'm just curious : is there an reason for you to look at what exact requests > the > OGR WFS driver sends to the server ? Does it cause practical problems with a > server I would not have tested against ? If so, that might be worth > reconsidering the implementation and make gml:Envelope the default for WFS 1.1 > (and in case of a buggy server fallback to gml:Box if needed. I should have > noted which server didn't like gml:Envelope ...), instead of the current logic > which is the reverse. I have been spending some time for investigating what is the WFS interoperability situation between main open source servers (Geoserver, deegree, TinyOWS and Mapserver) and a bunch of clients (QGis, gvSIG, Kosmo GIS, uDig, iGeoDesktop, OpenJUMP, Geoserver and Mapserver (cascading WFS) and now GDAL. And ArcGIS, Mapinfo, Carcorp SIS Map Browser and Gaia from the commercial side. This because I want to be able to tell our clients which combinations work and which not and why not. Using gml:Box in Filter sent with http GET seems not to be a big practical problem, if any. However, it is a bit irritating that the same Filter that is accepted through GET does not work if it is sent through http POST to schema validating WFS servers. At least TinyOWS denies it and probably deegree and also Geoserver when it is run in a strich CITE test mode. It must be really irritating to develop WFS clients and especially if they are intented to work both with GET and POST and support WFS 1.0.0 and WFS 1.1.0 and give a good support for using both spatial and attribute filters. -Jukka Rahkonen- _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
