[mapserver-commits] r13162 - trunk/docs/en/development/rfc

[svn at osgeo.org]

Author: sdlime
Date: 2012-02-22 05:29:03 -0800 (Wed, 22 Feb 2012)
New Revision: 13162

Modified:
   trunk/docs/en/development/rfc/ms-rfc-77.txt
Log:
Added voting history and a configuration example (more to come).

Modified: trunk/docs/en/development/rfc/ms-rfc-77.txt
===================================================================
--- trunk/docs/en/development/rfc/ms-rfc-77.txt	2012-02-22 09:14:09 UTC (rev 13161)
+++ trunk/docs/en/development/rfc/ms-rfc-77.txt	2012-02-22 13:29:03 UTC (rev 13162)
@@ -125,12 +125,35 @@
 ----------
 #4127. Work is underway in a sandbox (http://svn.osgeo.org/mapserver/sandbox/sdlime/rfc-77/).
 
-4. Backwards Compatibility
+4 Configuration Examples
+------------------------
+
+Adding optional text below other text:
+
+::
+
+  LABELITEM 'item1'
+  CLASS
+    ...
+    LABEL # always displayed using LAYER:LABELITEM as a source for text
+      FONT 'arial'
+      ...
+    END
+    LABEL # conditionally displayed using LABEL:TEXT as a source for text
+      EXPRESSION ('[item2]' ~ '.') # item2 has something in it
+      FONT 'arial-italic'
+      TEXT '[item2]'
+      OFFSET 0 15
+      ...
+    END
+  END
+
+5. Backwards Compatibility
 --------------------------
 At the mapfile level there are no issues, existing mapfiles should run without any change. It is possible that this could
 introduce regressions within MapScript although the scope is not fully known.
 
-4.1 Relationship to Other Outstanding Label Bugs
+5.1 Relationship to Other Outstanding Label Bugs
 ------------------------------------------------
 
 * #1355 - None, test is valid w/grouped labels too.
@@ -141,12 +164,12 @@
 * #3335 - Styles are supported for each additional label.
 * #3675 - This will be adressed by this RFC. Label content will be defined by the new TEXT attribute.
 
-5. Enhancements
+6. Enhancements
 ---------------
 Although beyond the scope of this work it seems that some interesting work related to the relative placement of grouped
 labels might be possible. For example, it could be useful to define positions relative to the previous label instead of
 relative to a label point.
 
-6. Voting history
+7. Voting history
 -----------------
-None
+Adopted on 12-15-2011 with +1 from SteveL, DanM, JeffM, ThomasB, SteveW, HowardW.