[Fwd: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] COLORITEM & kin]

[Stephen Woodbridge]

I think this was intended to go to the list also.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] COLORITEM & kin
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:15:15 -0500
From: Steve Lime <Steve.Lime at dnr.state.mn.us>
To: Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at SWOODBRIDGE.COM>
References: <200705101619.08081.plists at prometheus.org.yu> 
<46432D81.30007 at mapgears.com> 
<200705101814.53312.plists at prometheus.org.yu> 
<464352B3.6000208 at mapgears.com> <464357BB.8060008 at swoodbridge.com>

My plan at the moment (for 5.0) is to support:

STYLE
   - angle, size, color, outlinecolor, symbol

LABEL
   - angle, size, color, outlinecolor

Color would take either (as in a mapfile):

   - RGB (space delimited)
   - #RRGGBB (hex)

No alpha values. Those would be handled through an opacity proxy 
parameter. Should named colors be supported in the future through the 
mapfile then we would extend that capability to the binding for colors.

Steve

>>> On 5/10/2007 at 12:34 PM, in message <464357BB.8060008 at swoodbridge.com>,
Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at SWOODBRIDGE.COM> wrote:
> Daniel Morissette wrote:
>> Attila Csipa wrote:
>>>> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-19 
>>>
>>> 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?
> 
> 0xRRGGBB(AA)
> #RRGGBB
> 255 255 255
> red
> green
> blue
> blue2
> blue3
> 
> Where named colors are define in a hash and looked.
> 
> -Steve W.