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

[GeoTux]

Thanks Lorenzo and Christopher.

1) Supported data format is a problematic item, we know. As we put there
(data formats without map server) we try to discriminate the thin client
features (We don't know if this have any sense for developers and users,
what do you think?), but this information is hard to collect. We would like
to know your opinion about this item, so we can improve it to be a relevant
one. Thanks in advance.

2) UMN MapServer is better, you're right.

3) Supported GeoServices: The comparison is based on thin web mapping
clients not on map servers, so we want to avoid put there map servers
features.

Thanks by the invitation Lorenzo, this is a great community. Do you think we
can discuss issues like this comparison there?

Saludos.

GeoTux

2009/1/14 Lorenzo Becchi <lorenzo at ominiverdi.com>

> 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.
>
> 2) Mapserver
> you'll better write "UMN Mapserver" instead of "Mapserver". This is
> generally helpful for beginners.
>
> 3) supported geoservices
> there are two levels of interaction with geoservices: one through
> mapserver that support WMS and WFS, and the other though the JS
> Interface that support, as you wrote, WMS and WFS (only points).
>
> [OT] as Spanish speaking community I would like to invite you all of
> GeoTux to participate to OSGeo-es (http://es.osgeo.org)
>
> ciao
> lorenzo
>
>
>
> GeoTux wrote:
> > Good evening Ka-Map developers and users.
> >
> > We are the GeoTux team [1] and we present to you a thin web mapping
> > clients comparison [2]. Your project is there so we would like you to
> > visit it.
> >
> > We recently translate the comparison, the page is originally in spanish.
> >
> > Any suggestions are welcome.
> >
> > -----------------
> > [1] http://geotux.tuxfamily.org <http://geotux.tuxfamily.org/>
> > [2]
> >
> http://geotux.tuxfamily.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=comparaciF3n-de-clientes-ligeros-para-sig.html&Itemid=59&lang=en
> > <
> http://geotux.tuxfamily.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=comparaciF3n-de-clientes-ligeros-para-sig.html&Itemid=59&lang=en
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----------
> >   |\__
> > (:>__)(
> >   |/
> >
> > Soluciones Geoinformáticas Libres
> > http://geotux.tuxfamily.org/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ka-Map-users mailing list
> > ka-Map-users at lists.maptools.org
> > http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/ka-map-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ka-Map-users mailing list
> ka-Map-users at lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/ka-map-users
>



-- 
-----------
  |\__
(:>__)(
  |/

Soluciones Geoinformáticas Libres
http://geotux.tuxfamily.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.maptools.org/pipermail/ka-map-users/attachments/20090114/4a99433e/attachment.htm