|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > > > * Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
> > > > spec or another spec published by the LSC
> > >
> > > Does this mean server side software as well, or just end user software?
> >
> > I'd be inclined to say end user, because they're designing for 'dumb' (or
> > 'dumber') users. I think that understanding how the system is used by everyday
> > users is important. What do others think?
>
> I'm not sure. While it's important, it should only rarly drive decisions on the
> file format. The whole reason you have end user programs is to make dealing
> with the dats easier.
>
> $0.02
>
> Dan
I agree with Dan that all usable programs that involve non-trivial (read simple
text editors) manipulation of DAT Code should qualify
--Orion
|
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > > > > * Authored a software program that is compliant with either the LDraw 0.2.7
> > > > > spec or another spec published by the LSC
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean server side software as well, or just end user software?
> > >
> > > I'd be inclined to say end user, because they're designing for 'dumb' (or
> > > 'dumber') users. I think that understanding how the system is used by everyday
> > > users is important. What do others think?
> >
> > I'm not sure. While it's important, it should only rarly drive decisions on the
> > file format. The whole reason you have end user programs is to make dealing
> > with the dats easier.
> >
> > $0.02
> >
> > Dan
>
> I agree with Dan that all usable programs that involve non-trivial (read simple
> text editors) manipulation of DAT Code should qualify
Works for me.
-Tim
|
|
|