[tei-council] surfaces, surfaceGrps, etc. [was : minutes/release deadline]

[Lou Burnard]

But we do explicitly allow a rectangular zone which is not included 
within the bounds of its parent surface. The only restrictions are that 
the zone must be defined using the same coord system as the surface. And 
that if the zone contains a graphic, the zone must define the whole 
space represented in the graphic. So why should non-rectangular zones be 
any different ?

But I agree that we dont need @points on <surface>. It should probably 
be taken out of att.coordinated and locally defined.


On 20/11/11 11:28, Laurent Romary wrote:
> That's my understanding as well, even if I think I am missing some of the details here (I have not managed to conceptualize things, which is needed for me to think...)
>
> Le 20 nov. 2011 à 12:12, Sebastian Rahtz a écrit :
>
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2011, at 00:27, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think we agreed that since<surface>  is always establishing a
>>> coordinate system, and a coordinate system must always be rectangular,
>>> we don't need @points on<surface>, only on<zone>.
>>>
>>> That gives us the rather odd possibility of a non-rectangular<zone>
>>> which contains a<surface>  that must have a rectangular coordinate
>>> system, though.
>>
>> I'd rather think  of<surface>  defining the extent of a two-dimensional
>> grid, and<zone>  as describing polygon areas within that. Then my
>> head does not hurt so much.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stormageddon Rahtz
>> Head of Information and Support Group, Oxford University Computing Services
>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>
>> Sólo le pido a Dios
>> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>>
>> --
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>
> Laurent Romary
> INRIA&  HUB-IDSL
> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>
>
>