search

openoereb / pyramid_oereb_mfp

Implementation of a static extract (PDF export) for the pyramid_oereb server with MapFish-Print
1 stars 3 forks source link

#129: remove municipality name from header #130

Closed peterschaer closed 1 year ago

peterschaer commented 1 year ago

fixes #129

michmuel commented 1 year ago

The name of the municipality below the coat of arms (right expression?) might not be according to the specs (except it can be considered as a component of it). My first impression is that it is better to have it. Municipality name is written only on the first page. And not everyone is that familiar with all the coat of arms.

voisardf commented 1 year ago

According to the specs, the municipality name is indeed not mandatory. I do agree with @michmuel that it could be nice to keep it - but should we render it optional?

peterschaer commented 1 year ago

I realise that the name of the municipality has its justification. I wonder if it is worth the effort to make it optional. That would also affect the print_proxy in pyramid_oereb, wouldn't it? For me, it's enough if I can delete or comment out the corresponding code block in our own repository.

jwkaltz commented 1 year ago

I realise that the name of the municipality has its justification. I wonder if it is worth the effort to make it optional. That would also affect the print_proxy in pyramid_oereb, wouldn't it? For me, it's enough if I can delete or comment out the corresponding code block in our own repository.

Yes, it would require a configuration parameter in pyramid_oereb itself, but that is not a big deal, as we already have a couple of examples for that. I would prefer that to customizing the print templates per project (the goal is that each project can use the templates out-of-the-box, without modification). I can assist with adding this as an option in pyramid_oereb, if desired.

voisardf commented 1 year ago

I'm also fan of the optional parameter even if this means a little more work (now).

peterschaer commented 1 year ago

That is also ok for me. An optional parameter is certainly the more consistent solution.

jwkaltz commented 1 year ago

That is also ok for me. An optional parameter is certainly the more consistent solution.

Do you want to do a pull request for that, or shall I?

peterschaer commented 1 year ago

Could you do the pull request? This is beyond my mapfish_print knowledge ;-)

peterschaer commented 1 year ago

is replaced by #132