RFC 14 out for comment...
Steve.Lime at DNR.STATE.MN.US
Tue Apr 11 11:55:23 EDT 2006
One more thought. If we do operate at the layer level then we could
repurpose the TRANSFORM parameter. (e.g. TRANSFORM TRUE|UL=FALSE|LL|UR|LR)
>>> Steve Lime <Steve.Lime at DNR.STATE.MN.US> 4/11/2006 10:50:05 AM >>>
Sean: Good point. I thought about that too and would agree except
that for the types of things folks want to do it might be more convenient
to define this at the feature level. I think it will be quite common to place
text in multiple corners of an output image. Granted, that could be handled
with multiple layer definitions. I do like the ORIGIN parameter regardless,
sounds better than RELATIVETO...
What do folks think about having to define multiple layers to define
>>> Sean Gillies <sgillies at FRII.COM> 4/10/2006 10:29:59 PM >>>
On Apr 10, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Steve Lime wrote:
> Hi all: I posted a new RFC for supporting relative coordinates
> (primarily =
> for inline features)
> to the mapserver website. Comments would be appreciated. The actual =
> are trivial to make this work. The issues are more implementation
> related- =
> hanging a
> new parameter off a shapeObj vs something else and so on...
> I have coded up one solution and the end result is very useful.
To me, "relative to XX" is just a shorthand description of a
coordinate reference systems. When I think of it as a CRS, it clearly
should be defined at the layer level like the geographic and
projected coordinate systems already in play.
layer.setImageOrigin(LR) # or maybe even override setProjection()
layer.transform = MS_FALSE
More information about the mapserver-dev