formatting of BoundingBox coordinates (mapows.c)
Steve Lime
steve.lime at DNR.STATE.MN.US
Sat Nov 5 01:16:23 EST 2005
That's what WCS does and I think that decision was based off some discussions so I think that'd work...
Steve
>>> Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at DMSOLUTIONS.CA> 11/04/05 4:19 PM >>>
Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
> The downside to using %f is that we really need to provide explicit
> precision (ie. %.3f or %.15f). Without knowing too much about the
> SRSes in question it is often hard to pick an optimal precision. If
> we pick to much precision we end up introducing "noise" digits at
> the end beyond the double precision of the inputs that makes
> comparison of extents with other servers messy. If we provide too
> little precision and the coordinate system ends up being geographic
> then we could easily be giving very poor bounds.
>
There seems to be no easy solution to this as you explained. In other
places we use %.15g, that's at least better than %f, perhaps we should
use that there too?
Daniel
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Morissette dmorissette at dmsolutions.ca
DM Solutions Group http://www.dmsolutions.ca/
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the mapserver-dev
mailing list