[gdal-dev] Re: HDF-EOS vs. GDAL: order of dimensions

[Frank Warmerdam]

Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> 	Please note that the point is not to override dimensions, but to
> 	override their order.  If the data is, say, 100x100x100, its
> 	spatial dimensions are 100x100, but it obviously does matter
> 	which 100 are for X, Y and the bands.
> 
> 	It may be that it's HDF4_SDS:...[:MAY-BE-OPTIONS...] thing that
> 	needs to be implemented, but GDALOpen () seems to be rather
> 	overloaded already.

Folks,

I agree with Ivan (Lucena) that the dataset name is he appropriate
place to put dimension order selection though some specific syntax
would need to be developed.  I have already expressed my objections
to open options as a completely distinct piece of data when RFC 10
was initially proposed and they continue to apply.

I'm not against a more uniform and orderly syntax for composing
complex dataset names.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org