That would be a good idea to define a feature for the legend icon per class. We should also be able to define a custom text attribute so that we could customize the text displayed for the annotation layers. I assume this would apply for a new RFC in practice.
Best regards, Tamas 2011/6/22 Lime, Steve D (DNR) <[email protected]> > What about allowing the definition of a geometry (like inline features) > using percentages. The defaults > would be "as is" but could be overridden, kinda like the LEGENDICON class > parameter. We could add a > LEGENDFEATURE parameter... That would give folks a ton of control and by > specifying coordinates in percentages > things would scale. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Morissette > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mapserver-users] Re: Polygon layer with no fill shows line > thumbnail in the legend image > > Personally, I do not feel strongly either way, other than being hesitant > to change something that's been in place for 8 years. Perhaps an option > could be added to control the type of icon to generate? > > On 11-06-16 07:12 AM, Tamas Szekeres wrote: > > Any update on this one? > > > > Tamas > > > > > > > > 2011/5/28 Tamas Szekeres <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> > > > > Folks, > > > > According to a client's report, the current behaviour of drawing the > > legend images may be confusing, as the polygon layer with no fill > > shows line thumbnail (zigzag) in the legend image. > > I've been tracking down the changes in SVN and came to the conlusion > > that this behaviour has been introduced with > > http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/changeset/2172 8 years ago. > > > > I'd be curious to know if this approach is satisfactory for all > > users, or would it be more convenient to show an empty rectangle in > > these cases? I would personally be in favour of drawing a rectangle > > in order to make it clear that the layer type is polygon and not > > line. Or is there any other reason that I'm not aware of, which > > makes the current approach more compelling? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Tamas > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mapserver-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users > > > -- > Daniel Morissette > http://www.mapgears.com/ > Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000 > > _______________________________________________ > mapserver-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users > > > _______________________________________________ > mapserver-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users > >
_______________________________________________ mapserver-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
