[LSC] File Format Restrictions for Official Parts

[Michael Heidemann]

You are right, but all you mentioned can be seen.

I think LDView and L3Lap are the reference at present for BFC.

Also I was not thinking about a real reference but the possibility for 
the author to check what they have done.

In general you are right, we are writing the specs. But if nobody can 
check what we want it should be, we do not need to write that.

It is the same with a law. If there is nobody who cares/controls 
(police) you do not need the law.

mikeheide

William Howard schrieb:

> 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 <mailto:mikeheide at web.de>

>     *To:* LDraw Standards Committee <mailto:lsc at ldraw.org>

>     *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

>>     <mailto: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

>>>         <mailto: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 <mailto:LSC at ldraw.org>

>>>             http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc

>>>             <http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc>

>>>

>>>

>>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>         _______________________________________________ LSC mailing

>>>         list LSC at ldraw.org <mailto:LSC at ldraw.org>

>>>         http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc

>>

>>         _______________________________________________

>>         LSC mailing list

>>         LSC at ldraw.org <mailto:LSC at ldraw.org>

>>         http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc

>>         <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/bfc8829e/attachment.html>