[Mapcss] MapCSS 0.2 finalization

[Kal Conley]

Am 5/1/12 11:14 AM, schrieb Komяpa:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> A couple of questions to discuss:
>
> 0) schedule.
>
> Will it be fine for developers to implement some obvious changes in
> their engines till 15th of May, marking respective rows in the table,
> so we'll have less differences before we start discussing other stuff?
> Two weekends during that period :3
>
> so, proposed schedule:
>
> may 1-15: trying to fill more details about your renderer into that
> table, showing weaknesses of others and own strenghts, and trying to
> implement the most of things the others do to be compatible.
> may 15-21: re-partitioning of the table into a "green" release-ready
> part and the "proposed" part for future discussion.
> may 20-30: writing text-form spec from green part of table.
>
> Any objections?
>
>
> 1) meta{}.
>
> That thing was used as josm's standard way to store info about
> stylesheet, like its name and author.
>
> I think it's worth it - even if most will just ignore its content, it
> can be used to store mapcss revision number and be used by something
> like libmagic to guess that it's mapcss file at all.
I would suggest maybe something like @meta{} instead of meta{}. As its
not really a selector and should be handled specially. The @ symbol
makes it more obvious that this is the case. What do people think?
>
> 2) testing stylesheet.
>
> For now some developers use openstreetmap.by's komap-in-mind
> stylesheet, http://kothic.googlecode.com/hg/src/styles/osmosnimki-maps.mapcss
>
> It has advantages of being long (so you can check performance),
> beautifully-rendered (if done right), and has something like reference
> rendering, http://openstreetmap.by itself.
>
> Obvious problems are that it was written being strongly coupled with
> komap - it has a lot of -x-properties in it and even some hardcoded
> hacks to be nice. Also, some problems of mapnik, like inability to
> cascade rules, sneaked into it too.
>
> I think we need some shorter sheet that will just utilize all the
> stuff that will go to the standard. Maybe we should revisit that after
> 15th of May, if everyone agrees.
>
>