[LSC] File Format Restrictions for Official Parts

[William Howard]

The official stance is given here http://www.ldraw.org/Article479.html - 
which only says that it is undesirable and not forbidden.

Old files do matter, as old files quite frequently come back onto the 
tracker.  Any parts library specification needs to allow for pre-existing 
files that contain pov-ray code (one such part is the skelton minifig head), 
so we need a clause which says that parts already containing such statements 
are allowed to keep them, but new parts are not allowed to include them.  I 
shall add something to that effect.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Heidemann" <mikeheide at web.de>
To: "LDraw Standards Committee" <lsc at ldraw.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [LSC] File Format Restrictions for Official Parts



> Pov-Ray statements are not allowed (http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=11706).

> I think the old files doesn't matter at this point. This document should 

> lead the way into the future. As I do not want to have a long period where 

> nothing happen on the pt I think we should leave them or fix them. But for 

> new part submissions from the date of releasing this document it should be 

> restricted.

>

> mikeheide

>

> Philo schrieb:

>> Your modifications go in the direction of more concise and precise 

>> specifications, so I totally agree.

>>

>> Remains the question of old files and POV-RAY statements. I am completely 

>> unqualified here...

>>

>> Philo

>>

>>> Here are my thoughts.

>>>

>>> I would delete "(or parts on the tracker)" from the Purpose section. 

>>> The only reason for parts to be on the tracker is so that they can 

>>> become official, so putting this in seems redundant.  That sentence is 

>>> also missing a period at the end.  For that matter, I think the 

>>> following wording is more clear:

>>>

>>> This document describes additional restrictions to the LDraw File Format 

>>> 1.0 specification for official parts.

>>>

>>> In the filenames section, the text seems obviously copied and pasted 

>>> from another document.  (I'm assuming it's left as it was when it was in 

>>> the file format spec, before being removed from there.)  Change " 

>>> Official LDraw filenames (such as parts) may not be" to "Filenames may 

>>> not be".

>>>

>>> Since this document is meant to be used purely to provide restrictions 

>>> for official parts, I don't think it makes sense to describe why 

>>> meta-commands are useful.  Just state that only the listed ones are 

>>> allowed in part files.

>>>

>>> Remove "(or parts on the tracker)" from the header meta commands 

>>> sentence, and add a period to the end of that sentence.

>>>

>>> Currently we're only allowing two meta commands in the body.  If we're 

>>> convinced that this is likely to remain constant, then it's OK as-is. 

>>> Otherwise, it would probably be better as a list.  "Only the following 

>>> meta commands are permitted in the body of official parts:", followed by 

>>> a bulleted list.  For that matter, even if we are convinced that new 

>>> ones aren't going to be allowed in, I think that a bulleted list is 

>>> still easier to read.

>>>

>>> --Travis

>>>

>>> On Nov 14, 2007 12:39 AM, William Howard 

>>> <william at howard-family.fsworld.co.uk 

>>> <mailto:william at howard-family.fsworld.co.uk>> wrote:

>>>

>>>     I've (finally) done a draft for this on the scratch pad

>>>          http://www.ldraw.org/Article408.html

>>>          I'm sure there are other items to be added (see

>>>     http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/2007-September/000973.html

>>>     <http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/2007-September/000973.html>)

>>>     just wondering the best way to extract it from Lugnet and "the

>>>     tribe" ;-)

>>>

>>>         ----- Original Message -----

>>>         *From:* William Howard 

>>> <mailto:william at howard-family.fsworld.co.uk>

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

>>>         *Sent:* Tuesday, November 06, 2007 6:46 AM

>>>         *Subject:* Re: [LSC] File Format Restrictions for Official Parts

>>>

>>>         Just to be clear, all that is on the scratch pad are the

>>>         sentences that were removed from the LDraw file spec and so need

>>>         a new home finding for them and/or notes about what should also

>>>         be mentioned in a library restrictions document.

>>>                  I have no idea why the 0.27 file spec only excluded the

>>>         Write/Print meta command and not also step, clear, pause, etc,

>>>         but I agree with Mike that we would be better to say what is

>>>         permitted rather than what is not.

>>>                  Hopefully I'll have some time at the weekend to start 

>>> making a

>>>         proper spec document

>>>                  W

>>>

>>>             ----- Original Message -----

>>>             *From:* Michael Heidemann <mailto:mikeheide at web.de>

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

>>>             *Sent:* Monday, November 05, 2007 10:27 PM

>>>             *Subject:* Re: [LSC] File Format Restrictions for Official 

>>> Parts

>>>

>>>             I agree so far, but I think the only meta command allowed

>>>             should be comments like "0 // text" and "0 BFC [options]".

>>>             This would be much easier to understand an no question will

>>>             arise.

>>>

>>>             cu

>>>             mikeheide

>>>

>>>             William Howard schrieb:

>>>

>>>>             One of the most pressing things we need to do is  to write

>>>>             the File Format Restrictions for Official Parts spec.

>>>>                          These were items removed from the LDraw File 

>>>> Format 1.0.0

>>>>             Spec that relate to library parts and not to the general

>>>>             file format.

>>>>                          Items that were removed can be found on the 

>>>> LSC Scratch

>>>>             Pad - http://www.ldraw.org/Article408.html

>>>>                          No doubt there are others.

>>>>                          William

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> 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

>>>

>>>         _______________________________________________

>>>         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

>