 | | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
(...) checking. (...) I guess I should have picked this up in the final checking for the 2003-01 parts release. Regardless of the results of this discussion, I have submitted a fixed part to the Parts Tracker. Chris (23 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 (23 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
(...) I personally feel that whitespace should be ignored. However, if that is the case, the BFC spec should probably be updated to note this. It might also be argued that further comments after the INVERTNEXT should also be ignored. However, I (...) (23 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, (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
