I kind of disagree with trying to generalize the parameters now… if another
format comes along and adds a similar capability will it really have the
exact same options with the exact same semantics? I am kind of doubtful.
Unless there is a strong consensus that this has to happen I’m inclined to
leave the options as is and KML specific until there is a more concrete
need to coalesce them.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:29 PM Kevin Smith <smit...@draconic.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-07-05 11:56 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> > Hey Justin / Kevin:
> >
> > Was talking with Kevin last week, he is looking to fine tuning the
> > output of point locations to use for labeling when doing vector tile
> > output.
> >
> > So you are both working on "calculating a better centroid" - can you
> > share top level format options to avoid duplication?
> >
> >
> &format_options=centroid_contain:true;centroid_samples:10;centroid_clip:true
> >
> > +1 to your GSIP, I do want to hear from Kevin if we can :)
>
> Yes this makes sense, At the moment I'm just working on including
> precomputed label points in the vector tiles using the existing labeler,
> but it's quite likely that would benefit from this kind of additional
> control in future, so it would make sense to do it in a format agnostic
> way now (at least in terms of keywords we're adding).
>
>
> --
> Kevin Michael Smith
> <smit...@draconic.ca>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
