Subject:
|
Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:12:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1096 times
|
| |
|
|
Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Chris Dee writes:
>
> > 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 make it "correct".
>
>
> insist? Did you mean await?
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 stating this officially.
> The whole file including primitives should be BFC compliant to have the CERTIFY.
To make it work yes. The parts I have certified all used primitives
that were already certified. I plan on fixing any primitives that
I come across which aren't.
I suppose it's possible (though probably not a good idea) that one
could predict how a primitive would be when it is certified and
continue to fix a part file accordingly (I'm pretty sure all
primitives are supposed to have all faces pointing 'outward'.)
Of course this would mean that the part might look funny in a
BFC enable viewer until the primitive was fixed also but it
would allow work to continue...
I haven't worked on my code for a while, I got BFC (on BFC
certified files) working the last time I did work on it. This
whole discussion has gotten me to look into finishing the
implementation of the BFC spec. Up until now I assumed everything
was BFC certified, and only really looked for the winding hints.
I found this useful actually when I moved on to updating and
certifying part files - it sure does make the problems stand out.
I plan on leaving this 'force BFC' functionality as an option
to my program for this very reason.
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o) Systems Support Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc. |||||
Enterprise Server Products Kyle.McDonald@Sun.COM
1 Network Drive BUR03-4630 \\\// voice: (781) 442-2184
Burlington, MA 01803 (o o) fax: (781) 442-1542
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
