RFC 14 out for comment...

[Sean Gillies]

Steve,

At most there will be 4 extra layers, right? That's not so bad. The  
constraint that all features of a layer be in the same CRS has been  
fine for MapServer. As a born-again MapServer conservative, I'm  
concerned about creating special cases for wiggling out of this  
constraint. Special cases increase documentation pressure, require  
more tests, etc.

Sean

On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Steve Lime wrote:

> 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
> multiple origins?
>
> Steve
>
>>>> 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 =
>> computations
>> 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.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Steve,
>
> 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
>      layer.addFeature(shape)
>      layer.draw()
>
> My $0.02
> Sean
>
> ---
> Sean Gillies
> http://zcologia.com
>