On Wednesday, July 29, 2009, Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS)
<bart...@osgis.nl> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> as far as I can recall, the GetFeatureInfo format uses the old GML parser
> since for the new GML parsers you need to know the typename (and the
> namespace), which we do not know (unless we would also do a DescribeLayer
> request which not all WMS-s support).
>
> * Valid options properties:
> * featureType - {String} Local (without prefix) feature typeName
> (required).
> * featureNS - {String} Feature namespace (required).
> * geometryName - {String} Geometry element name.
>
> Best regards,
Thanks for your response Bart. Do you know if the old GML parser
targets a specific GML version? (sorry for the dumb questions)
Thanks
> Bart
>
> Eric Lemoine wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bart van den Eijnden
> OSGIS, Open Source GIS
> bart...@osgis.nl
> http://www.osgis.nl
>
>
--
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
