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

[Travis Cobbs]

I'd say that it would be totally irresponsible to change the header to 0
!BFC CERTIFY, and then leave all the other BFC commands alone.  So if we
don't have jurisdiction to change the BFC spec for all BFC commands, then we
absolutely cannot change the 0 BFC CERTIFY line, at least as far as I'm
concerned.  (Of course, I prefer not to change it.)

--Travis

On 8/22/06, Ross Crawford <ross.crawford at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> LSC mailing list
> LSC at ldraw.org
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/attachments/20060822/f1343b55/attachment.html