[LSC] Proposed change to LDraw part file header to support the CA - Version3

[Ross Crawford]

LDraw wrote:
> dear LSC members,
> 
> to speed up things I summarized this thread 
> http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/2006-August/000415.html and the 
> follow-ups in a new version, trying to interpret the mood withing the 
> LSC for certain changes.
> 
> 0 !BFC ( CERTIFY ( CCW | CW ) | NOCERTIFY )

I have conflicting views about adding ! to BFC CERTIFY. On one hand, 
there will generally be a BFC CERTIFY in the header, but it will be 
confusing if BFC INVERTNEXT does not also get it, as that will mean 
there is a !BFC and a BFC meta. But BFC INVERTNEXT is not an 
organisation meta, nor a header, so it should not have !.

My personal view is maybe no BFC statement should have a !. The current 
BFC spec only requires the {NO}CERTIFY before any operational commands, 
all other BFC commands can be anywhere. So if we want the BFC 
certification meta to have a ! I think we should change it altogether, 
to reduce inconsistancy. I would suggest:

0 !BFCCERTIFY ( CCW | CW | OFF )

Thoughts?

ROSCO