 | | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) IIRC, my claim of making this BFC compliant was found to be incorrect when reviewed in the PT. So to expedite its release, I suspect Steve did an admin edit of the 0 BFC CERTIFY line (since we only insist on BFC compliance for primitives) to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) insist? Did you mean await? The whole file including primitives should be BFC compliant to have the CERTIFY. (...) Yes, a NOCERTIFY can be considered as a (temporary) turn-off-BFC, and other BFC statements should silently be ignored. /Lars (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) No I thin khe meant that only new and updated primitives are required to be BFC compliant to be accepted to the parts tracker. Parts are still accepted that aren't certified though that is preferable. Though I'm not sure I've seen anything (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) Actually, no it wouldn't. It would render incorrectly after the primitive was BFC certified if you guessed wrong about the ultimate orientation of the polygons in the primitive. However, until the primitive is certified, it will not be BFC'd, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) Actually this is stated in the BFC spec but it wasn't enforced until the PT was created. -Orion (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
