New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should extent be inherited if local coordinate system has no extent? #3219
Comments
I agree. |
I agree for this example, and to me the problem is that if you just set preserveAspectRatio there is no extent defined in step 1 (no default for the extent), so it makes sense that we inherit the extent in step 2 as there isn't any value in step 1. However, if you on the other hand have:
there does exist a default for preserveAspectRatio in CoordinateSystem, and thus preserveAspectRatio=true shall be used. That is consistent with the goal when we introduced the slightly complicated rules:
Note models normally don't specify preserveAspectRatio, and of the ones that do most also give the extent. I believe there are about 20 cases of specifying coordinatesystem without extent in MSL; and I haven't found any cases where these rules matter. |
If a class defines a local coordinate system to modify one the attributes that are not extent, e.g.,
preserveAspectRatio
, should the extent be inherited? My interpretation of the specification is that it should not be inherited (from point 1 below). Is this the desired behavior? I think it would be more natural if the attributes of the coordinate system were inherited separately.From section 18.6.1.1 Coordinate Systems:
Example
What is the extent for the icon of
Example
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: