Open artemp opened 5 years ago
It even seems to me that there is a breaking change between v2.0 and v2.1:
2.0:
A point at (0,10) or (4095,10) is within the extent of the tile. A point at (-1,10) or (4096,10) is outside the extent of the tile.
2.1:
A point at (1,10) or (4095,10) is within the extent of the tile. A point at (0,10) or (4096,10) is on the edge of the extent. A point at (-1,10) or (4097,10) is outside the extent of the tile.
Am I right to assume that an extent of 4096
previously meant values from 0
to 4095
inside or on the edge, and now means values from 0
to 4096
inside or on the edge?
@ahocevar It was more or less a bug in 2.0
as it was written. The existing encoder/decoders followed the behavior in 2.1
and it was just a mistake in the writing of 2.0
, this is why it was not considered a breaking change honestly.
Overall, the language here needs to be definitely improved by the 3.0
specification though.
Thanks for the clarification @flippmoke.
Current comment (which doubles up as a developer documentation) on
extent
field is lacking clarity and description. Consider current text evolution fromv1.0.0
tov2.1
v1.0.0/1.0.1
v.2.0
v2.1
Proposed clarification/add-on
Clarification of clarification :)
Positive number
- number greater than zero.It's
optional
by definition...size of side of a square..
- we consider all VTs to be regular quadrilateral which leads to =>This in turn, defines unambiguously bounding box (extent)
- explaining connection betweensize
(what this really is) andextent
( used to unambiguously define).and finally
..can be increased to maintain higher coordinate precision
indicates usage e.g why it might have a different value in some context (via @springmeyer )Maybe someone can help to make it more concise :sos: /cc @springmeyer @kkaefer @flippmoke @ericfischer