RFC 11: Curved Labels

[Pericles S. Nacionales]

+1 for me as well and I agree with Daniel--ANGLE FOLLOWPATH makes more 
sense to me.

-Perry

Daniel Morissette wrote:
> Steve Lime wrote:
> 
>> Hi all: You may or may not know that a patch for curved label support 
>> just mysteriously appeared one morning a bit ago in bugzilla. Output 
>> is pretty impressive. I worked with the author on a few integration 
>> points (collision avoidance being the biggie) and an patched patch was 
>> submitted in the last week. (Thanks Benj!)
>>
>> Anyway, we wrote up a quick RFC for your consideration. See:
>>
>>   http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-11
>>
> 
> I'm ready to say +1, but just a quick comment about "ANGLE FOLLOW" in 
> the mapfile... follow what? Should we use "ANGLE FOLLOWPATH" instead?
> 
> Also, what if we ever implement more advanced or more expensive 
> algorithms later, for instance options to try different label positions 
> in case of collisions, that would be more computationally expensive and 
> we might not want to enable that by default so we'd need more mapfile 
> options to control that. As we define a name for this new feature in the 
> mapfile, should we plan for a way to name multiple algorithms or options 
> in the future?
> 
> I guess I'm just thinking outloud... "ANGLE FOLLOW" (or FOLLOWPATH) 
> could be fine for now and we can deprecate it later if we add more 
> advanced options. At that point we will better know which kind of 
> options we would need anyway.
> 
> Daniel