## TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

#### View:

 Message: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Topic: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Author: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] Font: Proportional Font

Subject:

Re: Fractional points on <zone>?

From:

Date:

Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:10:38 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (35 lines)
 HI Matthew, Yes, I wasn't questioning the function of the zone; I was asking why anyone would choose to define a coordinate space with a granularity which was too coarse for the coordinates they need to express. Cheers, Martin On 2017-12-15 08:51 AM, Matthew Davis wrote: > I have no definitive answer for you, but my assumption has always been that those are x,y coordinates to use for an overlay. So the surface is a 200x300 space, filled by the image file, and the zone indicates the boundaries of an initial or miniature within that space. > > >> On Dec 15, 2017, at 8:41 AM, Martin Holmes <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> HI all, >> >> There's an example in the Guidelines that has always bothered me, and I'm wondering whether anyone can explain it or remember why it was constructed this way. It's this one: >> >> >> >> which shows a fairly straightforward use of and to define an area on an image. What puzzles me is that the coordinate space defined on the surface, which is 200 x 300, is then subdivided in the zone/@points attribute, which uses floating-point numbers: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My question is: why do this? Why define a coordinate space that you then have to subdivide in this way? Since it's a user-defined coordinate space, there's no need to do this at all. If the resolution of the image is 200x300, then there's no real meaning in a value less than 1; if the resolution of the image is higher, then why not use it for the coordinate space? >> >> Cheers, >> Martin