| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > Which one looks better? Now I'm not an official reviewer, but I'd
> > > have to say your part gets my vote. An improperly dithered dark blue
> > > clearly beats the yucky magenta color 5 used around the numbers in the
> > > official part. What's up with that?
> >
> > Um, unless the standard is relaxed, while I agree that Willy's part
> > rocks, it doesn't pass the check process as defined.
> >
> > That's what I think needs some discussion, whether the dithering
> > requirement ought to be relaxed or not, rather than how cool Willy
> > and his part are. And I think it's up to the LSC to lead that
> > discussion (or let us know they thought about it and don't agree
> > and here's why)...
>
> Wow, did you intentionally put that condescending tone in there,
> or am I reading too much into it?
Hopefully the latter. I did not intend to have any condescending tone in there
at all! I'm talking about appropriate process. If you read it in there I must
not have done a very good job of communicating and I apologise. Either that or
you're looking for a tone that isn't there.
> Must be the nasty blinky red
> error message that's gotten to me. I hate blinky text.
I'm not very fond of it either...
>
> Anyhow, my non-LSC-member (and thus pretty much worthless)
NO!!! It's not at all worthless! *I*'m not an LSC member and I don't think my
opinion is worthless either!
What I was driving at is that if this is an important issue, (which I think it
is) the LSC ought to be standing up and voicing their own opinions, and
soliciting the opinions of all the authors, toolwriters, reviewers and users,
just as I've always said in the past. I'm really sorry that apparently didn't
come through this time.
But what I also mean by "lead" is that they, at least in my personal view, ought
to be getting in front of the discussion, not sitting back and not saying
anything much. Which sort of was my perception (rightly or wrongly, at least
till Orion spoke up) of what they were doing, at least externally. Not being on
the LSC means I didn't have any visibility to the fact that they were discussing
this already.
Also what I meant by lead is that it's the LSC's place (and NOT the SteerCo's
place) to drive that discussion. I want to be very sensitive to SteerCo hewing
to the appropriate organizational/technical boundary, see...
> opinion
> is that the dithering requirement should perhaps be relaxed to more
> of a recommendation than a requirement.
I agree.
> After all, even the ldraw.org
> parts tracker doesn't use the original LDRAW.EXE to render the parts.
> It uses something more like a portable open source reference
> implementation of LDRAW.EXE.
I agree again. I think there is some talk of a new reference implementation but
I'm not sure.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
