Subject:
|
Re: Lego XML?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:43:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
927 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Amy Hughes writes:
> > Is there a problem that any of these technologies will solve, or any new
> > practical capabilities that they will add, ...
...
> It could include a color specifier which would
> output as the appropriate RGB color for POV-Ray or as the appropriate LDraw
> color for LDraw. ...
Let me expand on that. An XML color can be an abstraction that is defined
somewhere else. So the attribute color="red" can mean LEGO red in the LEGO
namespace, but some other red (like 0xFF0000) in the XHTML namespace, for
instance. Further, the color could carry more information, like
transparency, luminocity, reflectance, and so on that may be implied but
isn't explicitly described by the current LDraw format.
> - Ease of including meta-data and outputting it as LDraw or POV-Ray comments.
Or meta-data for other tools. For instance, the current LDraw format is
strictly visual -- it doesn't describe anything about how the part can be
used, other than some keyword implications. Imagine if parts were described
in terms of stud-suppliers and stud-receptors. Then it would be possible to
know what structures could stick together, or which parts have axle-holes.
Or, as a more practical example, train track components could have their
connecting portion described, as well as the class or parts that can mate
with those connections.
> - Possibly easier to validate syntax than .ldr for new tools. (This is
> marginal, though.)
I'm becoming a fan of the power of a well-formed XML Schema. If parts are
created or edited in an XML text editor, a schema can make finding typos
very easy as they are typed.
>
> The big win would be native suport for things like cylinders, spheres,
> cones, meshes, and textures. ...
Absolutely. The lack of curves is the primary reason I am not using LDraw as
the part description model on my current project.
Cary
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lego XML?
|
| Hi: Let me add my two cents: As I hope you ALL know :-), I'm working with a student of mine in a new verison of LeoCAD called LeoCAM, which main feature is the ability to connect parts by their connectors (like axles, axle-holes, stud,stud-inles). (...) (21 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad)
| | | Re: Lego XML?
|
| (...) Color is a bad concept when you're making parts, it would be much better to have a material library instead. For example, currently we use the same black color to describe tires, the reflective sides of bricks and the non-smooth sides of (...) (21 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego XML?
|
| (...) I can't speak for the others who are excited about the possibility of creating a BrickML, but to me it kind of seems like a logical successor to the LDraw file format, given that it could handle meta-data elegantly and do everything that the (...) (21 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
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
|
|
|
|
