Stephen Woodbridge woodbri at SWOODBRIDGE.COM
Thu May 10 13:34:51 EDT 2007

Daniel Morissette wrote:
> Attila Csipa wrote:
>> The COLOR is not mentioned explicitly but it seems to be one rare ones 
>> not fitting the usual binding scenarion as it is almost the only one 
>> that has multiple parameters. Can there be multiple bindings ? Now you 
>> have:
>> COLOR [r] [g] [b]
>> if you translate this into the logic of RFC19 does this mean it would 
>> have three separate bindings for the colour components (items r, g and 
>> b), or would it still be a single binding that encompasses all three 
>> values (like a 0xRRGGBB(AA) number) ? This especially gets tricky if 
>> we are operating with PC256 images, should we as Frank asked even use 
>> values, or would some sort of mapping be more appropriate ?
> You're correct that RFC-19 is not clear on which parameters will be 
> mapped. I think this should be corrected in the RFC and it should 
> explicitly list all parameters that are mappable and how they operate.
> I had the same question and asked not long ago on this list about 
> mapping of colors and Steve confirmed that this would be supported as 
> well. However I had assumed that COLOR would map to a single field and 
> not to 3 fields. Since there are multiple possible ways to do the 
> mapping that's one more reason to update the RFC to better specify how 
> colors will be mapped.

I agree with Daniel, RFC-19 needs some clarification.
I also assume the we would make to one field.

But questions like would we support Alpha channel explicitly in this 
schema also.? What formats for the color would be supportted?

255 255 255

Where named colors are define in a hash and looked.

-Steve W.

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list