[LSC] Proposed changes to the LDraw part header to support theContributor Agreement - Version 6

[Lars C. Hassing]

Travis Cobbs wrote:
> There was one thing brought up that we should probably decide on.  There 
> was an alternative proposal to how we should wrap history lines.  Do we 
> do it like in the proposal (0 //  <spaces> wrapped text), or do we do it 
> like in KEYWORDS and HELP, e.g:
> 
> 0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD [UserName] Free text description of change
> 0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD [UserName] Second row simulating formatting
> 
> The above format has the advantage of being consistent with keywords and 
> help.  However, given the nature of the history lines, it might be more 
> confusing.  Despite the fact that it's inconsistent with keywords and 
> help, my personal opinion is that the way it is in the v6 document is 
> easer to read.  But I don't have a strong opinion.

The "0 // <spaces> wrapped text" *requires* a monospaced font to look nice.

I would think most history lines will be short anyway,
so multi-lines will be rare.

There's no line length limit, so you can write a single rather long line.
/Lars