[Geoserver-devel] GML 3.2. Mime Type

GeoServer GeoServer Developer
1

Hi,

GeoServer WFS 2.0 responses encoded in GML 3.2 use " text/xml; subtype=gml/3.2" as mime-type b default.
This is an invalid mime-type: http://jersey.576304.n2.nabble.com/Media-type-parse-error-td6445421.html

The mime-type recommended by OGC WFS 2.0 specification is "application/gml+xml; version=3.2", although some examples in the specification are using " text/xml; subtype=gml/3.2" (maybe not updated examples).

GeoServer seems to be aware of the two mime-types (but always use the wrong one):
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/blob/master/src/wfs/src/main/java/org/geoserver/wfs/xml/GML32OutputFormat.java#L42-L44

I'm about to make a pull request that will make GeoServer use the correct mime type by default.

Any objection ?

Regards,

Nuno Oliveira

--

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
Visithttp://goo.gl/it488V for more information.

Nuno Miguel Carvalho Oliveira
@nmcoliveira
Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 333 8128928

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

-------------------------------------------------------

AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono
da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate
nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e
-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo
anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
  The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for the attention and use of
the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act (Legislative Decree
June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying,
distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
information in this message that has been received in error. The sender does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content,
accuracy or completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after they were sent or for other risks which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.

2

Nuno,

standards conformance is a good thing. There are three issues that we need to discuss:

(1) This is a backwards-incompatible change for clients that rely on receiving a response with a "text/xml" MIME type. As this behaviour does not comply with the WFS 2.0 standard, clients have no basis to expect it, but it is nonetheless a change that may have some impact.

(2) GML 3.1 output will still use "text/xml". This is inconsistent with GML 3.2 output, but then the WFS 1.1 and 2.0 standards are inconsistent. Do we prefer standards conformance or consistency?

(3) Web browsers (certainly Firefox and Chrome) commonly display "text/xml" inline but offer to download "application/gml+xml". Try the layer previews and demo requests with your change applied and see the difference between GML 3.2 and GML 3.1. I can read XML (it is a Markup Language after all) and I like "text/xml" which indicates something a human can read. I think "application/gml+xml" is a horrible monstrosity. However, my preference is inconsistent with the WFS 2.0 standard.

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 13/05/17 06:46, Nuno Oliveira wrote:

Hi,

GeoServer WFS 2.0 responses encoded in GML 3.2 use " text/xml;
subtype=gml/3.2" as mime-type b default.
This is an invalid mime-type:
http://jersey.576304.n2.nabble.com/Media-type-parse-error-td6445421.html

The mime-type recommended by OGC WFS 2.0 specification is
"application/gml+xml; version=3.2", although some examples in the
specification are using " text/xml; subtype=gml/3.2" (maybe not updated
examples).

GeoServer seems to be aware of the two mime-types (but always use the
wrong one):
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/blob/master/src/wfs/src/main/java/org/geoserver/wfs/xml/GML32OutputFormat.java#L42-L44

I'm about to make a pull request that will make GeoServer use the
correct mime type by default.

Any objection ?

Regards,

Nuno Oliveira

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@anonymised.com>
Director
Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/&gt;
New Zealand

3

Note that the WFS/FES SWG chair is aware of the issue with WFS 1.1:

[ WFS/FES SWG ] Change the media types for gml to conform to the latest MIME type
http://ogc.standardstracker.org/show_request.cgi?id=206

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 13/05/17 11:04, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

(2) GML 3.1 output will still use "text/xml". This is inconsistent with
GML 3.2 output, but then the WFS 1.1 and 2.0 standards are inconsistent.
Do we prefer standards conformance or consistency?

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@anonymised.com>
Director
Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/&gt;
New Zealand

4

Good call, we need a flag to re-instate previous behavior to avoid breaking upgrades
for those that cannot fix the clients.

We have been running Cite tests for many years and are trying to update them (first my repeated failed attempts at prepping the work and then getting the community on board,
and now Nuno working on Wfs 2.0 conformance, and Jody also said Boundless has an interest in upgrading the others to current) so
I guess the choice has been “conformance” (at least most of the time, I don’t pretend to make it the one and only).

···

Il 13 mag 2017 1:07 AM, “Ben Caradoc-Davies” <ben@anonymised.com> ha scritto:

Nuno,

standards conformance is a good thing. There are three issues that we
need to discuss:

(1) This is a backwards-incompatible change for clients that rely on
receiving a response with a “text/xml” MIME type. As this behaviour does
not comply with the WFS 2.0 standard, clients have no basis to expect
it, but it is nonetheless a change that may have some impact.

(2) GML 3.1 output will still use “text/xml”. This is inconsistent with
GML 3.2 output, but then the WFS 1.1 and 2.0 standards are inconsistent.
Do we prefer standards conformance or consistency?

(3) Web browsers (certainly Firefox and Chrome) commonly display
“text/xml” inline but offer to download “application/gml+xml”. Try the
layer previews and demo requests with your change applied and see the
difference between GML 3.2 and GML 3.1. I can read XML (it is a Markup
Language after all) and I like “text/xml” which indicates something a
human can read. I think “application/gml+xml” is a horrible monstrosity.

LOL, I agree it’s pretty bad, but so are other things that we are doing to
be compliant :slight_smile:

Cheers
Andrea

5

An awareness of 3 years ago, and then nothing… I’d say they don’t care enough to make it happen? :wink:

Cheers
Andrea

···

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@anonymised.com> wrote:

Note that the WFS/FES SWG chair is aware of the issue with WFS 1.1:

[ WFS/FES SWG ] Change the media types for gml to conform to the latest
MIME type
http://ogc.standardstracker.org/show_request.cgi?id=206

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 13/05/17 11:04, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

(2) GML 3.1 output will still use “text/xml”. This is inconsistent with
GML 3.2 output, but then the WFS 1.1 and 2.0 standards are inconsistent.
Do we prefer standards conformance or consistency?

–
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@anonymised.com>
Director
Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world’s most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.com.366…sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

–

==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime

@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054 Massarosa (LU)
phone: +39 0584 962313

fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003

Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.

The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy’s New Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the information in this message that has been received in error. The sender does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.

6

Hi,

Read also the comments from almost duplicate

https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOS-4011

-Jukka Rahkonen-

···

Lähettäjä: Andrea Aime andrea.aime@anonymised.com
Lähetetty: 13. toukokuuta 2017 11:57
Vastaanottaja: Ben Caradoc-Davies
Kopio: Geoserver-devel
Aihe: Re: [Geoserver-devel] GML 3.2. Mime Type

An awareness of 3 years ago, and then nothing… I’d say they don’t care enough to make it happen? :wink:

Cheers
Andrea

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@anonymised.com> wrote:

Note that the WFS/FES SWG chair is aware of the issue with WFS 1.1:

[ WFS/FES SWG ] Change the media types for gml to conform to the latest
MIME type
http://ogc.standardstracker.org/show_request.cgi?id=206

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 13/05/17 11:04, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

(2) GML 3.1 output will still use “text/xml”. This is inconsistent with
GML 3.2 output, but then the WFS 1.1 and 2.0 standards are inconsistent.
Do we prefer standards conformance or consistency?

–
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@anonymised.com>
Director
Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world’s most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.com.366…sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

–

==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime

@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054 Massarosa (LU)
phone: +39 0584 962313

fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003

Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.

The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy’s New Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the information in this message that has been received in error. The sender does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.

7

Hi all,
thanks for the feedback.

You are correct Jukka it seems that I created a duplicated issue :frowning: thanks for the warning.

So ‘text/xml; subtype=gml/3.2’ is an invalid MIME type that doesn’t comply with WFS 2.0 specification but is interpreted as XML by clients that ignore the subtype parameter which is handy (note that the parsing of this MIME type will fail for clients that actually try to interpret the full MIME type definition).

On the other side, ‘application/gml+xml; version=3.2’ is a valid MIME type compliant with WFS 2.0 specification but is an horrible monstrosity that is not recognized as XML by common clients like browsers.

Note that WFS 2.0 reference implementation uses ‘application/gml+xml; version=3.2’ as MIME type for GML 3.2 documents and adverts:

application/gml+xml; version=3.2 application/xml; subtype="gml/3.2.1"

So I see two options here:

  1. Being compliant with WFS 2.0 specification by default which means give preference to ‘application/gml+xml; version=3.2’, this will require a flag in WFS configuration to allow the restore of the previous behavior so clients that cannot be modified will still work.
  2. Not being compliant with WFS 2.0 specification by default and use ‘application/gml+xml; version=3.2’ only when CITE compliant flag is enabled.

I vote for option 1.

Cheers,

Nuno Oliveira

···

On 05/13/2017 09:55 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:

Il 13 mag 2017 1:07 AM, “Ben Caradoc-Davies” <ben@anonymised.com> ha scritto:

Nuno,

standards conformance is a good thing. There are three issues that we
need to discuss:

(1) This is a backwards-incompatible change for clients that rely on
receiving a response with a “text/xml” MIME type. As this behaviour does
not comply with the WFS 2.0 standard, clients have no basis to expect
it, but it is nonetheless a change that may have some impact.

Good call, we need a flag to re-instate previous behavior to avoid breaking upgrades
for those that cannot fix the clients.

(2) GML 3.1 output will still use “text/xml”. This is inconsistent with
GML 3.2 output, but then the WFS 1.1 and 2.0 standards are inconsistent.
Do we prefer standards conformance or consistency?

We have been running Cite tests for many years and are trying to update them (first my repeated failed attempts at prepping the work and then getting the community on board,
and now Nuno working on Wfs 2.0 conformance, and Jody also said Boundless has an interest in upgrading the others to current) so
I guess the choice has been “conformance” (at least most of the time, I don’t pretend to make it the one and only).

(3) Web browsers (certainly Firefox and Chrome) commonly display
“text/xml” inline but offer to download “application/gml+xml”. Try the
layer previews and demo requests with your change applied and see the
difference between GML 3.2 and GML 3.1. I can read XML (it is a Markup
Language after all) and I like “text/xml” which indicates something a
human can read. I think “application/gml+xml” is a horrible monstrosity.

LOL, I agree it’s pretty bad, but so are other things that we are doing to
be compliant :slight_smile:

Cheers
Andrea

-- 
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! 
Visit [http://goo.gl/it488V](http://goo.gl/it488V) for more information.
==
Nuno Miguel Carvalho Oliveira
@nmcoliveira
Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054  Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584 962313
fax:   +39 0584 1660272
mob:   +39  333 8128928

[http://www.geo-solutions.it](http://www.geo-solutions.it)
[http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it](http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it)

-------------------------------------------------------

AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono
da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate
nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e
-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo
anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
 
The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for the attention and use of
the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act (Legislative Decree
June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying,
distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
information in this message that has been received in error. The sender does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content,
accuracy or completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility  for changes made after they were sent or for other risks which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
8

+1 for option (1), compliance by default, with a system property to restore the current behaviour.

It would also be handy to have a Services / WFS option to return all responses as "text/xml", but this may be outside the scope of your work. It all depends how annoying "application/gml+xml" becomes.

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 14/05/17 05:09, Nuno Oliveira wrote:

Hi all,
thanks for the feedback.

You are correct Jukka it seems that I created a duplicated issue :frowning:
thanks for the warning.

So 'text/xml; subtype=gml/3.2' is an invalid MIME type that doesn't
comply with WFS 2.0 specification but is interpreted as XML by clients
that ignore the subtype parameter which is handy (note that the parsing
of this MIME type will fail for clients that actually try to interpret
the full MIME type definition).

On the other side, 'application/gml+xml; version=3.2' is a valid MIME
type compliant with WFS 2.0 specification but is an horrible monstrosity
that is not recognized as XML by common clients like browsers.

Note that WFS 2.0 reference implementation uses 'application/gml+xml;
version=3.2' as MIME type for GML 3.2 documents and adverts:

   <OutputFormats>
   <Format>application/gml+xml; version=3.2</Format>
   <Format>application/xml; subtype="gml/3.2.1"</Format>
   </OutputFormats>

So I see two options here:

1. Being compliant with WFS 2.0 specification by default which means
give preference to 'application/gml+xml; version=3.2', this will require
a flag in WFS configuration to allow the restore of the previous
behavior so clients that cannot be modified will still work.
2. Not being compliant with WFS 2.0 specification by default and use
'application/gml+xml; version=3.2' only when CITE compliant flag is
enabled.

I vote for option 1.

Cheers,

Nuno Oliveira

On 05/13/2017 09:55 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:

Il 13 mag 2017 1:07 AM, "Ben Caradoc-Davies" <ben@anonymised.com
<mailto:ben@anonymised.com>> ha scritto:

    Nuno,

    standards conformance is a good thing. There are three issues that we
    need to discuss:

    (1) This is a backwards-incompatible change for clients that rely on
    receiving a response with a "text/xml" MIME type. As this
behaviour does
    not comply with the WFS 2.0 standard, clients have no basis to expect
    it, but it is nonetheless a change that may have some impact.

Good call, we need a flag to re-instate previous behavior to avoid
breaking upgrades
for those that cannot fix the clients.

    (2) GML 3.1 output will still use "text/xml". This is inconsistent
with
    GML 3.2 output, but then the WFS 1.1 and 2.0 standards are
inconsistent.
    Do we prefer standards conformance or consistency?

We have been running Cite tests for many years and are trying to
update them (first my repeated failed attempts at prepping the work
and then getting the community on board,
and now Nuno working on Wfs 2.0 conformance, and Jody also said
Boundless has an interest in upgrading the others to current) so
I guess the choice has been "conformance" (at least most of the time,
I don't pretend to make it the one and only).

    (3) Web browsers (certainly Firefox and Chrome) commonly display
    "text/xml" inline but offer to download "application/gml+xml". Try
the
    layer previews and demo requests with your change applied and see the
    difference between GML 3.2 and GML 3.1. I can read XML (it is a
Markup
    Language after all) and I like "text/xml" which indicates something a
    human can read. I think "application/gml+xml" is a horrible
monstrosity.

LOL, I agree it's pretty bad, but so are other things that we are
doing to
be compliant :slight_smile:

Cheers
Andrea

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@anonymised.com>
Director
Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/&gt;
New Zealand

9

Hi,

I just updated the pull request [1] with the option to override the MIME type:

image

Basically I add a flag that activates the MIME type overriding and drop down choice that allow us to select which MIME type we want to use.

Regards,

Nuno Oliveira

[1] https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/2348

···

On 14-05-2017 00:14, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

+1 for option (1), compliance by default, with a system property to restore the current behaviour.

It would also be handy to have a Services / WFS option to return all responses as “text/xml”, but this may be outside the scope of your work. It all depends how annoying “application/gml+xml” becomes.

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 14/05/17 05:09, Nuno Oliveira wrote:

Hi all,
thanks for the feedback.

You are correct Jukka it seems that I created a duplicated issue :frowning:
thanks for the warning.

So ‘text/xml; subtype=gml/3.2’ is an invalid MIME type that doesn’t
comply with WFS 2.0 specification but is interpreted as XML by clients
that ignore the subtype parameter which is handy (note that the parsing
of this MIME type will fail for clients that actually try to interpret
the full MIME type definition).

On the other side, ‘application/gml+xml; version=3.2’ is a valid MIME
type compliant with WFS 2.0 specification but is an horrible monstrosity
that is not recognized as XML by common clients like browsers.

Note that WFS 2.0 reference implementation uses ‘application/gml+xml;
version=3.2’ as MIME type for GML 3.2 documents and adverts:

application/gml+xml; version=3.2 application/xml; subtype="gml/3.2.1"

So I see two options here:

  1. Being compliant with WFS 2.0 specification by default which means
    give preference to ‘application/gml+xml; version=3.2’, this will require
    a flag in WFS configuration to allow the restore of the previous
    behavior so clients that cannot be modified will still work.
  2. Not being compliant with WFS 2.0 specification by default and use
    ‘application/gml+xml; version=3.2’ only when CITE compliant flag is
    enabled.

I vote for option 1.

Cheers,

Nuno Oliveira

On 05/13/2017 09:55 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:

Il 13 mag 2017 1:07 AM, “Ben Caradoc-Davies” <ben@anonymised.com
mailto:ben@anonymised.com> ha scritto:

Nuno,

standards conformance is a good thing. There are three issues that we
need to discuss:

(1) This is a backwards-incompatible change for clients that rely on
receiving a response with a “text/xml” MIME type. As this
behaviour does
not comply with the WFS 2.0 standard, clients have no basis to expect
it, but it is nonetheless a change that may have some impact.

Good call, we need a flag to re-instate previous behavior to avoid
breaking upgrades
for those that cannot fix the clients.

(2) GML 3.1 output will still use “text/xml”. This is inconsistent
with
GML 3.2 output, but then the WFS 1.1 and 2.0 standards are
inconsistent.
Do we prefer standards conformance or consistency?

We have been running Cite tests for many years and are trying to
update them (first my repeated failed attempts at prepping the work
and then getting the community on board,
and now Nuno working on Wfs 2.0 conformance, and Jody also said
Boundless has an interest in upgrading the others to current) so
I guess the choice has been “conformance” (at least most of the time,
I don’t pretend to make it the one and only).

(3) Web browsers (certainly Firefox and Chrome) commonly display
“text/xml” inline but offer to download “application/gml+xml”. Try
the
layer previews and demo requests with your change applied and see the
difference between GML 3.2 and GML 3.1. I can read XML (it is a
Markup
Language after all) and I like “text/xml” which indicates something a
human can read. I think “application/gml+xml” is a horrible
monstrosity.

LOL, I agree it’s pretty bad, but so are other things that we are
doing to
be compliant :slight_smile:

Cheers
Andrea

-- 
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! 
Visit [http://goo.gl/it488V](http://goo.gl/it488V) for more information.
==
Nuno Miguel Carvalho Oliveira
@nmcoliveira
Software Engineer

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054  Massarosa (LU)
Italy

phone: +39 0584 962313
fax:   +39 0584 1660272
mob:   +39  333 8128928

[http://www.geo-solutions.it](http://www.geo-solutions.it)
[http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it](http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it)

-------------------------------------------------------

AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono
da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate
nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e
-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo
anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
 
The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for the attention and use of
the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act (Legislative Decree
June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying,
distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
information in this message that has been received in error. The sender does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content,
accuracy or completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility  for changes made after they were sent or for other risks which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.