 | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
Hi Zach, (...) Actually it is misspelt throughout the Licence but I can't be bothered to go through it. Insofar as LDraw has an official language it is Australian English. (...) Good point. Perhaps an additional comment like: In order to avoid the (...) (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
(...) The above was worded badly. I'm most interested the above browsers. However, if you use some other browser, please test it in that as well, and report the results. --Travis (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
I'm adding a new feature to LDView that will generate a parts list web page for any model being viewed in LDView. The HTML code that I'm generating makes heavy use of CSS, and I don't have some browsers that users might use. While my output (...) (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
First, let me disclaim that this is not legal advice. It is merely my understanding of the CA License. I do have some legal knowledge of copyrights, but for any legal advice please contact and retain an attorney. Second, I don't know whether this is (...) (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) That's why as a part reviewer I try to follow this guidelines and I am much stricter that my own opinion would lead me. Yes, I am for some relaxation of the rules in order to get more "good enough" parts. Philo (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) You're right MAtt, "Only the best is good enough" but "la surqualité est de la non-qualité" (overquality is non-quality) and "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (better is enemy of good). Didier (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) An excellent idea. If my vote counts for anything, I say yes. Under the Needs Work comment authors or reviews could then note specific items that need to be done such as "Needs BFC" or "Underside needs more detail" or "needs more primitives in (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) This thread also seems to have brought up another very important question: Are the current review policies too strict, preventing parts that are "good enough" from getting in to users' hands in a timely manner? I've seen a number of posts in (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) I did a quick scan of the official parts on my hard drive. The most recent one with "(needs work)" in the part title is 30375s01 (Minifig Mechanical Torso without Chest/Rib Surface (Needs Work)), and it's from the 2002-05 update. There are two (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw Contest: POTM – Part Of The Month
|
|
(...) Well, that shows off a possible flaw in my suggestion. LDView doesn't automatically download unofficial versions of official parts. The part in your example has an official version, and that gets shown instead of the one on the tracker. (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
