<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 14/01/2008, <b class="gmail_sendername">Bernhard Reiter</b> <<a href="mailto:bernhard@intevation.de">bernhard@intevation.de</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Friday 11 January 2008 18:44, Bram de Greve wrote:<br>> > cool, I saw some of the commits happening, but hunted the empty shape<br>> > file problem. (Does somebody know, btw, if such a shape file is<br>> > legitimate at all?)
<br><br>> Why would it not be legitimate? <br><br>I don't know. Given Thuban's existance and that it is only reported now,<br>makes me believe such shapefiles are rare. Also it would not really serve a<br>purpose to have an object without geoobject in there.
<br><br>> I've skimmed the specs and found no<br>> such thing (about being illegal).<br><br>Okay, good to know! Thanks for looking into the specs.</blockquote><div><br>I've looked a bit further into it and I've found the conclusive paragraph in the specs on page 5:
<br><br>"If the shapefile is empty (that is, has no records), the values for Xmin, Ymin, Xmax and Ymax are unspecified."<br><br>To me, that implies that they are valid.<br><br>Also, there's something like null shapes, without geometric data. Each shapefile type supports null shapes, so you can have points and nulls in one file. But not points and lines ...
<br><br>Bramz<br></div></div>