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

[Martin Holmes]

I thought we had raised a ticket to rewrite the specs so that 
"rectangular" and "non-rectangular" would be removed where they're 
confusing -- @points can perfectly well define rectangular areas, and 
<zone>s can perfectly well be non-rectangular, so most of the current 
prose which uses "rectangular" is actually misleading.

However, I can't find anything in the minutes about this, which suggests 
I might have inadvertently omitted it. Does anyone remember a discussion 
on this?

Cheers,
Martin

On 11-11-20 06:38 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> ... though I have just noticed that the definition for @points actually
> says it "identifies a non-rectangular area *within the bounding box
> specified by the other attributes*  by specifying
> a series of pairs of numbers ... "
>
> I would like to rephrase that as "identifies a polygon of any shape
> using the co-ordinate system specied by its parent surface" for
> consistency with the rest.
>
> Note that you could use @points to define a rectangle of course.
>
>
>
> On 20/11/11 14:28, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>