search

MapServer / MapServer-import

3 stars 2 forks source link

WMS parameter handling is out-of-spec #1297

Open tbonfort opened 12 years ago

tbonfort commented 12 years ago

Reporter: bartvde@osgis.nl Date: 2005/03/26 - 15:00

E-mail Paul Ramsey:

Finally, since any parameters for a CGI request, either WMS or vanilla
mapserv.cgi, are read and decoded en masse in

  cgiutil.c:int loadParams(cgiRequestObj *request)

the WMS parameter handling in Mapserver is also out-of-spec. As long as
no one ever defines a LAYER or STYLE name with a "," in it though, no
one will ever notice.  As an added bonus, putting the behavior in-spec
would probably break a largish number of clients that improperly encode
the complete contents of the LAYER, STYLE and BBOX parameters.

As a side note, uDig originally did the wrong (but common) thing, of
encoding the full value string. For an in-spec server, this breaks
things. The only server that broke for us was CubeWerx. So in being
out-of-spec Mapserver is in the large majority. Happily, an in-spec
client (that does not encode the "," separator) can interoperate with
an out-of-spec server (that tries to decode the whole parameter), so
now uDig works with both CubeWerx and Mapserver.
tbonfort commented 12 years ago

Author: dmorissette Date: 2007/08/15 - 17:34 This ticket is about WMS Server. See also ticket #1296 for related issues in the WMS client.

Both should probably be addressed at the same time (in 5.2?).

tbonfort commented 12 years ago

Author: crschmidt Date: 2007/08/15 - 17:37 For the record, OpenLayers is out of spec with regards to BBOX. That should be fixed in 2.5, which would hopefully mean that other clients would pick it up before 5.2 of MS.

tbonfort commented 12 years ago

Author: pramsey Date: 2008/04/05 - 21:11 I think the drawbacks of fixing this outweigh the benefits. The only use case it would help is layer-or-styles-names-with-commas, and that does not seem to have been something that has ever occurred. So it would add a bunch of code cruft with basically no functional improvement. Should be closed as "wontfix".

tbonfort commented 12 years ago

Author: tomkralidis Date: 2008/04/14 - 17:10 I would agree with Paul for this one. Any objections/comments to wontfix'ing this one?

tbonfort commented 12 years ago

Author: dmorissette Date: 2008/04/16 - 16:16 I agree with Paul. Closing as WONTFIX.