Hi Eric,
I am not entirely sure, but I guess it was targeted for GML 2.1.X. But I
would not be surprised if it would also parse GML 1 documents.
Best regards,
Bart
Eric Lemoine wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS, Open Source GIS
bart...@osgis.nl
http://www.osgis.nl
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@openlayers.org
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
