Fwd: [Carto] Requesting Tentative Consensus on MRI File Format- Version 0.12

[George Silva]

Oops, sent only to Bob. Resending this to list.

George

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Silva <georger.silva at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Carto] Requesting Tentative Consensus on MRI File Format-
Version 0.12
To: Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>


I surely agree wiht the MRI, but i was hopping for more detailed specs on
the simbology.

For now, I think we can let the simbology on the side and focus on the
sections and detailed specs for other elements. I posted some time ago a
brief spec for the simbology.

Sections that are relevant:

- metadata;
- properties;
- layout;
- styles;
- filters;
- elements;

Also we should consider to have the same structure for several common
elements between all objects of the MRI, like position, size, z order,
transparency, simbology (map frames can also have a outline, for instance).
I also suggest that we always follow this order for all elements across our
MRI and all elements that have some sort of measurement, should be organized
in the form of value/unit pairs.

@Landon: I looked at your code and I will write C# version. I'll see what I
can do to extend the code a little bit further.

George


On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>wrote:

>  Is this the latest stuff being talked about?
>
>   *
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/carto/attachments/20100412/a894c7f6/mri_stripped_version_0-11-0001.xml
> *
>
>  *
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/carto/attachments/20100412/a894c7f6/MRI_Changes-0001.obj
> *  (really a PDF . . .)
>
>
>
> >>> "Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)" <tmitchell at osgeo.org> wrote:
>
> On 05/03/2010 10:23 AM, Landon Blake wrote:
> > We could certainly define "dynamic" components using proportions and
> > anchoring, but that will increase the complexity of the map rendering
> > engine quite a bit. I'd prefer to see that done in the prior step by
> > a nother program in the tool chain.
> >
> > That just my opinion though.
>
> I sure agree.  Anything that has a user interface can be considered
> slightly off-topic for now at least.  The hope is to solidify an XML
> specification and then let others build to the specification.
>
> Of course, once we have it settled, then I'm sure several of us will
> want to try various approaches and report back here :)
> _______________________________________________
> Carto mailing list
> Carto at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/carto
>
> _______________________________________________
> Carto mailing list
> Carto at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/carto
>
>


-- 
George R. C. Silva

Desenvolvimento em GIS
http://blog.geoprocessamento.net



-- 
George R. C. Silva

Desenvolvimento em GIS
http://blog.geoprocessamento.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/carto/attachments/20100503/2a954352/attachment.html