On Monday, July 27, 2009, Paul Dziemiela <p...@dziemiela.com> wrote: > 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
Thanks for these informative comments Paul. I really need to open the specs, which I will. François' initial questions related to Format.GML (the format used internally by the GetFeatureInfo format). This format doesn't target a specific GML version, so I'm wondering what we should do with it. I initially thought this parser was being deprecated by the new versioned GML parser, but I'm confused now that the GetFeatureInfo is based on it. Could anyone involved with the GML and GFI formats comment on that? Thanks > > -----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 > -- Eric Lemoine Camptocamp France SAS Savoie Technolac, BP 352 73377 Le Bourget du Lac, Cedex Tel : 00 33 4 79 44 44 96 Mail : eric.lemo...@camptocamp.com http://www.camptocamp.com _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
