Opened 19 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
#1297 closed defect (wontfix)
WMS parameter handling is out-of-spec
Reported by: | Owned by: | dmorissette | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | high | Milestone: | 5.2 release |
Component: | WMS Server | Version: | 4.4 |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | tomkralidis |
Description (last modified by )
E-mail Paul Ramsey: Finally, since any parameters for a CGI request, either WMS or vanilla mapserv.cgi, are read and decoded en masse in cgiutil.c:int loadParams(cgiRequestObj *request) the WMS parameter handling in Mapserver is also out-of-spec. As long as no one ever defines a LAYER or STYLE name with a "," in it though, no one will ever notice. As an added bonus, putting the behavior in-spec would probably break a largish number of clients that improperly encode the complete contents of the LAYER, STYLE and BBOX parameters. As a side note, uDig originally did the wrong (but common) thing, of encoding the full value string. For an in-spec server, this breaks things. The only server that broke for us was CubeWerx. So in being out-of-spec Mapserver is in the large majority. Happily, an in-spec client (that does not encode the "," separator) can interoperate with an out-of-spec server (that tries to decode the whole parameter), so now uDig works with both CubeWerx and Mapserver.
Change History (6)
comment:1 by , 19 years ago
Milestone: | → 4.6 release |
---|
comment:2 by , 17 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Milestone: | 5.0 release → 5.2 release |
Owner: | changed from | to
comment:3 by , 17 years ago
For the record, OpenLayers is out of spec with regards to BBOX. That should be fixed in 2.5, which would hopefully mean that other clients would pick it up before 5.2 of MS.
comment:4 by , 16 years ago
I think the drawbacks of fixing this outweigh the benefits. The only use case it would help is layer-or-styles-names-with-commas, and that does not seem to have been something that has ever occurred. So it would add a bunch of code cruft with basically no functional improvement. Should be closed as "wontfix".
comment:5 by , 16 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
I would agree with Paul for this one. Any objections/comments to wontfix'ing this one?
comment:6 by , 16 years ago
Resolution: | → wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
I agree with Paul. Closing as WONTFIX.
This ticket is about WMS Server. See also ticket #1296 for related issues in the WMS client.
Both should probably be addressed at the same time (in 5.2?).