[ka-Map-users] Thin web mapping clients comparison

Christopher Schmidt crschmidt at crschmidt.net
Wed Jan 14 11:47:42 EST 2009

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 03:20:43PM +0100, Lorenzo Becchi wrote:
> Hola GeoTux,
> your comparison is cool.
> thx
> I would like to suggest some little changes for ka-Map:
> 1) supported data formats
> you've wrote just shapefile and it's wrong. We support all formats that 
> UMN Mapserver supports. So all formats that GDAL/OGR do.

The 'notes' say: 
The parameter "Supported data formats" refers to the information that
the web client can be add without use a map server.

Of course, this isn't entirely clear to me, since OpenLayers is listed
as suppoting ka-Map, which is clearly a map server. I also don't think
that ka-Map has support for shapefiles in the browser, and don't know 
any other relevant description other than what it supports in the
browser, if we're talking about 'wihtout a server'.

> 2) Mapserver
> you'll better write "UMN Mapserver" instead of "Mapserver". This is 
> generally helpful for beginners.

"MapServer", not "Mapserver".

Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer

More information about the ka-Map-users mailing list