[LSC] File Format Restrictions for Official Parts

[William Howard]

We have lots of standards that have no tool for checking them

There is no reference parser for the File Format spec, there is no reference parser for the library header spec, there is no reference implementation of the BFC standard

I don't see it as a problem.  We are writing specs not implementations
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael Heidemann 
  To: LDraw Standards Committee 
  Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [LSC] File Format Restrictions for Official Parts


  I think that is not a very good idea, because we define a standard and have no tool to check this limitation.
  Maybe someone can write a little tool that just do check for this standard, so we have a reference and hopefully the big progs like LDView will follow.

  mikeheide

  Travis Cobbs schrieb: 
    We probably shouldn't put in an LDView coplanarity check when LDView doesn't yet support this.  We could say that both possible combinations of two triangles forming a quad must be co-planar to within x degrees, and leave it up to future work to check this. 

    --Travis


    On Nov 15, 2007 10:19 AM, Michael Heidemann <mikeheide at web.de> wrote:

      I think it is now the time to put all changes we talked about into the document on the scratch pad as there is:

      -Meta commands section shorten, no explanaition on what that is
      -Bullet list of allowed meta commands in the body
      -Coplanarity check from LDView with a value 1 or 5 or whatever we agree upon (The test procedure should be explained.)

      Have I missed something?
      mikeheide



      Travis Cobbs schrieb: 
        I convinced Sergio that keeping the connection info in separate files would be the way to go shortly after the info about his program was posted to LUGNET.  I don't think he's made the changes yet, but he said that he plans to.  (The changes aren't super-complicated, but neither are they trivial.) 

        Having said that, it appears that we have a general consensus that an itemized list would be better.

        --Travis


        On Nov 15, 2007 9:08 AM, Philo < philohome at free.fr> wrote:

          > Personally, I would rather see connection information done as separate 
          > files.  This allows author who don't want to implement clicking (i.e.
          > clicking a inappropriate for LDView) to not have to parse through the
          > click commands.  It also encourages data separation which would reduce 
          > file complexity and confusion
          >

          You are right, that's the best solution. I'll suggest him when we get in
          touch...

          Philo

          _______________________________________________
          LSC mailing list
          LSC at ldraw.org
          http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc 



------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
LSC mailing list
LSC at ldraw.org
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
  
      _______________________________________________
      LSC mailing list
      LSC at ldraw.org
      http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc 




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
LSC mailing list
LSC at ldraw.org
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20071115/888104d1/attachment-0001.htm>