Hi folks, I've been reading this thread with a bit of interest. From what I read gml:Box was deprecated with GML 3 so does this discussion only apply to GML 2 parsers or does this discussion extend over into the gml:envelope that replaces gml:box?
>From my reading of the specs, the GML 2 Box element was positioned as a "primitive geometry type" on the same level as a polygon or point. However the GML 3 Envelope element is not - it's an attribute of a primitive geometry. I don't think you can map your rectangular backyard as a gml:envelope and pass it around by itself. But I think you could do that with gml:box. So I think you are all debating whether or not a two-point box is a legitimate geometry or if not is instead only an attribute of a legitimate geometry. It looks like the GML folks went down this road and decided on the latter. Cheers, Paul -----Original Message----- From: dev-boun...@openlayers.org [mailto:dev-boun...@openlayers.org] On Behalf Of Francois Van Der Biest Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:24 AM To: Eric Lemoine Cc: dev@openlayers.org Subject: Re: [OpenLayers-Dev] GML format - unsupported geometry type: box On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Eric Lemoine<eric.lemo...@camptocamp.com> wrote: > Hi François > > I do not really have answers to your questions - I hope others will - > but I'd have one comment on what we should do with GML features with a > bounding box but without a geometry. > > I'd be -1 on creating geometries without coordinates and just bounds > (option 3), because an OpenLayers geometry's bounds represent the > bounds of the geometry's coordinates. I don't like the idea of > creating a geometry from the gml:BoundedBy (option 2) either, because > gml:BoundedBy and feature.geometry represent two different things - > gml:BoundedBy is the feature's bounding box while feature.geometry is > the feature's geometry. So, among your options, option 2 is the one > that makes the most sense to me. And in addition to option 2 I think > we could make the GML format parse the gml:BoundedBy/gml:Box element > and place the result either in feature.bounds if there's no geometry > or in feature.geometry.bounds if there's a one. > > What do you think? I think you wanted to say that you'd be in favor of option (1) ;-) I also like the idea of placing the bounds in feature.bounds, or feature.geometry.bounds if feature.geometry exists. So, I'm going to rework the patch attached to ticket http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2191 Thank's, F. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
