[Mapcss] Development of MapCSS?

Andrew Shadura bugzilla at tut.by
Fri Mar 8 22:38:29 UTC 2013


On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:16:58 +0100
Paul Hartmann <phaaurlt at googlemail.com> wrote:

> > I'm not particularly happy with what's happening with MapCSS. It's
> > understandable when certain software doesn't implement some
> > features, as sometimes there may be technical or other obstacles
> > for that. When features are implemented a very different way, or
> > implemented without priop discussions, this leads to chaos. And
> > that's what we have now.

> > In my opinion, JOSM implements MapCSS in a very bad way, and its
> > extensions are extremly non-systematic and against the spirit of
> > CSS-like languages at all and MapCSS in particular. Function naming
> > is very strange and is not easily readable.

> I'm a bit surprised by your strong disapproval. Extensions have been 
> implemented because there was demand for these features. If you have 
> ideas to achieve the same with a better syntax, then please let me
> know. You can also suggest better function names, it shouldn't be a
> problem to add an alias and deprecate the old name.

Well, maybe it sounded too strong, but... I'm not against the
improvements at all. I'm against the particular way they're
implemented. Sometimes similar things in JOSM are done different way,
and different things — in a similar. If I have enough time, I may try
to prepare some kind of analysis, not sure when I do that, however.

> In my opinion, MapCSS support in JOSM has been a great success so
> far. We have about 40 MapCSS styles contributed and maintained by
> users. Some of these styles are quite comprehensive and extremely
> useful (like the one by Martin).

Practical achievements is one thing, I'm happy with the fact that users
can easily add things to JOSM styles, and I've used that feature
myself. I was extremely disappointed when simple things I expected to
work didn't just because JOSM implements them a different way.

> I'd be happy to join the discussion and work towards a unification of 
> the language. However there seems to be little direct and practical 
> benefit from this. If there was another MapCSS renderer that was 
> interested in using the JOSM tailored styles, then some discussion
> would be starting. But for one reason or another, there isn't much
> exchange and sharing of styles at the moment. (Well, JOSM ships the
> main PL2 style. :) )

I don't understand why there should be separete MapCSS styles for JOSM.
Or this is a single MapCSS which works across different renderers,
maybe with different support degree, or we have lots of local dialects
of it — why can' we have just one? We'd all benefit from that.

WBR, Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/mapcss/attachments/20130308/5e7fff5f/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Mapcss mailing list