[ka-Map-users] Thin web mapping clients comparison
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.
> 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".
More information about the ka-Map-users