Bounding envelope (lat/Long) plus scale (which isn’t really possible to specify in Geodetic values) isn’t that sensible. It only makes sense in a projected CRS.
Scale also only makes sense if you specify the mm/pixel of the image generated. Scale is of course comparing the real world measure against a real world scaled down version. So neither source units (degrees which are an anglular measure and need to be mapped to m) or the target (pixels but without a mm/pixel) are measurable. Assumptions can be made but I think you need to make them otherwise every client will do something different.
If you compare images, literal comparison of identity/equivalence is probably not good enough. There needs probably to be specific tests and tolerances (due to different rounding assumptions etc.
Bounding envelope (lat/Long) plus scale (which isn’t really possible to specify in Geodetic values) isn’t that sensible. It only makes sense in a projected CRS.
Scale also only makes sense if you specify the mm/pixel of the image generated. Scale is of course comparing the real world measure against a real world scaled down version. So neither source units (degrees which are an anglular measure and need to be mapped to m) or the target (pixels but without a mm/pixel) are measurable. Assumptions can be made but I think you need to make them otherwise every client will do something different.
If you compare images, literal comparison of identity/equivalence is probably not good enough. There needs probably to be specific tests and tolerances (due to different rounding assumptions etc.