Andrea Aime wrote:
> the rule maxInterval(i) == maxInterval(i-1). This could have been done
> in the quantile function, but as I noted in gt2, this initial suggestion
> did not seem to find good feedback so I just gave up.
Not good - some kind of communication gap; I was happy with your 
suggestion. The way you asked it made me think you were wanting to know 
what was correct; acuster did some research into what was correct (for 
your flat areas), it sounded like we were all happy with your ideas to me?
>> As for closing intervals or not we could make separate function 
>> names; so it is really explicit what is going on (rather than having 
>> a magic boolean flag). I have have suggested we check what the 
>> "offical" function does for this work as recently defined in the SE 
>> 1.1 specification; but thus far nobody has done it...
>
> This is not a matter of what is official, it's a matter of what the 
> customer wants. They don't give a damn to OGC standards, I already 
> tried, and they found WMS calls (the simplest example of OGC standard) 
> way too complex.
I did not care what the customer wanted; only what you wanted (and I 
thought you were asking what was correct). As such we looked at what R 
stats did, and I figured the OGC function for this purpose may have 
something useful to say.
>> To be interpreted as (4999 or less: 1 pixel; 5000..14999: 2 pixel; 
>> 15000..39999: 3 pixel; 40000..74999: 4 pixel; 75000+: 5 pixel).
> Interesting, I did not know SE allowed for this. Wow, this means
> in SE it's possible to make crosstab like maps easily, that is, for 
> example, have the line width depend on one attribute, and the line color
> depend on another.
As I have been saying for a couple months; Eclesia is into some 
interesting work and is going in there with very little feedback form 
the community.
And yes this is exactly why I am excited and paying attention to his 
activities (much to his annoyance I am sure).
> Nope, when the user saw the open intervals for the first and last rules
> he thought the meaning was exactly like the one you proposed and asked
> us to remove the useless rules (first and last). What he wants is 
> exactly this:
> 0 <= x <= 10  yellow
> 10 < x <= 20  orange
> 20 < x <= 30  red
Okay sounds fine; lets do it. We display the same concept to users in 
uDig (and have an "else" clause for the rest).


Cheers,
Jody

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Reply via email to