Could be. I think we need more info.
Ciao,
Rex
At 8:03 AM -0700 6/13/05, Art Botterell wrote:
>On Jun 11, 2005, at 6/11/05 4:50 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>I happen to think that either a rule of thumb, or a specified limit
>>to the number of lat/long points might serve to solve the problem,
>>such that practitioners can automatically apply an optimization
>>algorithm before sending a message.
>
>Um. Well, reduction of geospatial polygons, either in a smoothing
>mode or (more likely for alerts) in an "enveloping" mode, is
>certainly a fact of life.
>
>Still, I'm having difficulty with the idea that we would adopt a
>format that roughly doubles the byte-size of each polygon, and then
>ask senders to reduce the resolution of their data to compensate.
>Seems like that might be a triumph of form over function, doesn't it?
>
>Anyway, I'm not sure anyone is actually having a problem with the
>existing polygon format, so are we in danger of trying to fix
>something that isn't really broken?
>
>- Art
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309
