Ah, that's interesting. So geo covers most of the task by describing the bounds of the image map, right? In addition you may need a way to describe the kind of projection used. Is that kind of like tagging?
On 10/3/06, Kevin Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:12 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Chris Casciano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> Totally ignored the point I was trying to make... and that is that >> describing a border - of any shape - by the use of a collection of >> geo >> coords (at whatever precision) is a totally different task then >> defining an individual point and its precision. > > Totally ignored the point I was trying to make... and that is that it > would perhaps be better to have the capacity to describe a polygon. They aren't mutually exclusive, which is why I suggested separating polygons into a separate thread. There is an HTML way to express 2D polygons in image maps, so what we would need is a way to georeference the imagemaps to translate these back to earth-based co-ordinates. For imagery in lat-long space, or for close-in zooms, just specifying the lat/long of the corners would be adequate; for other projections such as Peterson, Roberts or Mercator, you may need to specify the transform with more care, if trapezoidal interpolation give significant distortion. _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
