Open joanma747 opened 4 years ago
Recommend the "Future Work" label be added. Can this approach be evaluated in an OGC sprint or whatever?
Now we have several OGC API standards supporting a CRS requirement class using the crs=
query parameter to request a specific CRS. The Content-Crs:
response header, but not Accept-Crs:
.
These include: OGC API - Features - Part 2, OGC API - Maps - Part 1 and OGC API - Coverages - Part 1 (draft).
Since the response is quite drastically different and might surprise clients, especially because there is already requirements stating that the response will be in a particular CRS (CRS84 for Features , and the "native" aka storageCrs for Maps and Coverages), this Accept-Crs: mechanism might not be compatible with these requirements.
Can we close this issue as overcome by events?
The presentation in the Architecture DWG with title "Dutch API Best Practices" - Linda van den Brink (Geonovum) (https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=90056, last slide) recommend to use headers for CRS negotiation. I believe OWS Common needs to consider that as another extension of the core.
In the GET request: desired CRS is indicated in the header, too: "accept-crs" In responses: CRS of query and response are sent in the header: "content-crs"