Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #13307, comment 21


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2016-10-22T13:13:19+02:00 (8 years ago)
Author:
bastiK

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #13307, comment 21

    initial v1  
    33Oh, missed that!
    44
    5 It is good that 6/9, 8/10 and 9/10 are now covered, but I think 7/10 and 7/11 are valid and should not be reported by the validator. See also [http://postgis.refractions.net/docs/using_postgis_dbmanagement.html#OGC_Validity OGC multipolygon examples] for reference.
     5It is good that 6/9, 7/8 and 7/9 are now covered, but I think 7/10 and 7/11 are valid and should not be reported by the validator. See also [http://postgis.refractions.net/docs/using_postgis_dbmanagement.html#OGC_Validity OGC multipolygon examples] for reference.
    66
    77Regarding changes in `Multipolygon.java`: It seems okay when an invalid multipolygon is rendered in a strange way. No need to cover up the problem.