RE: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] specifying holes in polygons

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;>
Date: Sun Feb 11 2007 - 15:16:26 EST

I thought about this, but I can't see a need for a hole is specifying one's own location. I do however see a need, and other have been vocal on this, for specifying a hole in a service boundary. I thought that Henning's document was describing the format for data and how service boundaries are propagated throughout the network. If it isn't then I agree with Henning, and another home would be good. If it is, then I think a section at the end of Henning's document would be a good home. I think just saying "take a look at GML" is a not a good idea. Cheers James > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [] > Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 7:00 AM > To: Henning Schulzrinne > Cc: Winterbottom, James; GEOPRIV WG; Carl Reed OGC Account; ECRIT > Subject: Re: [Ecrit] RE: [Geopriv] specifying holes in polygons > > Maybe we should also add it to the PIDF-LO profile document. > It would fit in there. > > Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > > Since this isn't really specifically about LoST, I'm not sure we need > > to cover that in that particular spec. It is probably worth mentioning > > that this is possible, but normative descriptions of the GML would > > presumably be elsewhere. > > > > On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Winterbottom, James wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2]

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:16:26 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 11 2007 - 15:16:06 EST