 | | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
(...) quickly; all the rest are still in the queue. Thanks a lot. --Travis (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
I found this via browsing the other day, and it is very useful. It doesn't have ALL browsers, but has most and has options for version number, resolution, flash, java, etc. (URL) (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
I found this via browsing the other day, and it is very useful. It doesn't have ALL browsers, but has most and has options for version number, resolution, flash, java, etc. Aaron (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
(...) Thanks. It looks really bad in Lynx. Apparently Lynx doesn't like div elements (at least not when they have style information attached). Lynx also doesn't know the meaning of the tfoot element, which is a little more surprising. --Travis (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
(...) Looks fine in Opera 8.3. I'm sure I can test it on Lynx for you too ;) Tim (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) That is good advice because I have had more than one part I authored get held ONLY because the reviewer thought it should be BFCed when no claim was made by the part that it should be BFCed. BFCing may be a good idea, and if someone wants to (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) "A playground for perfectionists" Excellent summary of what I am trying to say. Most of us are not perfectionists even if we would like to be, and we don't have time to be perfectionists. But we do want useable parts. There is a step below (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Looking at the comments so far we seem to be answering two different questions so I'm going to explicitly ask both of them: Should we try to model the idealised part? Should a part by held if it matches a real part but not an "ideal" part? Tim (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) My individual opinion (as opposed to the consensus opinion of the admins) is in general, I'd prefer the idealized pattern. Since mis-registrations cause many variations, it's 'better' to go for the middle ground. Since it's not always clear (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? (loads of pics.)
|
|
(...) THINK they should've produced" and I correct any printing errors, like (...) misalignment, shades of color... In the past I had the same (...) the patterns I made and it cost me 2 month to get rid (...) Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
