MS-RFC-27: Label Priority

[Steve Lime]

Regarding priority binding. You wouldn't add a new keyword, rather you'd support
both inline setting of priority (e.g. PRIORITY 5) and via binding (e.g. PRIORITY [prioritycol]).
I didn't read the RFC to see PRIORITY is a label or class parameter. Right now labels
and styles support bindings but classes could too if necessary.

Would suggest a quick macro for any priority bounds testing so it could be used during
a mapfile parse as well (MS_IS_VALID_LABEL_PRIORITY).

Steve

>>> Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at MAPGEARS.COM> 05/22/07 3:04 PM >>>
Stephen Woodbridge wrote:
> 
> I would like to see support for LABELPRIORITYITEM.
> 

As I just wrote in reply to Frank's email, I added that as a question in 
the RFC. I'll have to look at how Steve handled the RFC-19 stuff and see 
if we can apply the mechanism in this case.

> You probably need to add a comment to the RFC on how you plan to handle 
> out of range values. I think clamping them to the min/max seems 
> reasonable, unless you have another idea.
> 

I've added a clarification about that:

"Specifying an out of range PRIORITY value inside a map file will result 
in a parsing error. An out of range value set via MapScript will be 
clamped to the min/max values in msAddLabel()."

> We had an extensive discussion in a few bugs about label priorites in 
> the past. I haven't had time to look them up and review them, but it 
> might be appropriate for completeness to reference them in the RFC and 
> comment that they were/were not considered and/or that they are 
> generally in/out of scope of this effort.
> 

I found only one other bug (#206) and added a ref to it in the RFC. The 
bug was fairly short, so if you know of other bugs with an extensive 
discussion and other ideas in them then I'd appreciate pointers.

Daniel
-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/