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

[Lou Burnard]

I dont remember any decision about a ticket, but certainly I have just 
finished updating the text to match this concern. The coordinate space 
defined by a surface remains obstinately rectangular ... but nothing 
else is.

On 20/11/11 18:48, Martin Holmes wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>