| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Todd Lehman writes:
> Snip<
> Newsgroup Followup-To
> ============================ ==================
> lugnet.cad.dat.ideas lugnet.cad
> lugnet.cad.dat.models lugnet.cad
> lugnet.cad.dat.models.sets lugnet.cad
> lugnet.cad.dat.parts lugnet.cad.dev
> lugnet.cad.dat.parts.prim lugnet.cad.dev
> lugnet.cad.dat.scenes lugnet.cad
>
> I'm not keen on separating the data from the discussions, but neither are
> some other people keen on putting them together.
I like the above groups and follow-ups quite well. You might consider adding
lugnet.cad.dat.models.alt (followup-to lugnet.cad).
> Open questions:
>
> 1. Is lugnet.cad.dat.* the best place to locate these new groups?
Unless you wanted a lugnet.cad-dat.* heirarchy. Either way works.
> 2. Should discussion be allowed or prevented in these groups? That is,
> should follow-ups to postings be directed to a different group, namely
> either lugnet.cad or lugnet.cad.dev? (See
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dev:1343
> for reasons in support of allowing discussion in the groups.)
IMHO the main reason for dividing up cad.dat is to create compact archives of
parts, sets, MOC's, etc. If discussion were going to be in the same group as
the .dat posts, I would just as soon allow parts to be posted directly to
cad.dev, and models,sets,scenes posted directly to lugnet.cad. I do realize
others differ in their opinions on this.
> 3. Are URLs like
> http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/
> http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/models/sets/
> tolerable and understandable? Or is it best if /ldraw/ appears in
> there somewhere?
Quite tolerable. I think pretty much everyone understands the special
connection between LDraw and Lego cad. We say "I 'ldrew' this model" even
though we might have used LDAO's modeler and LDLite to create and view it.
These days, LDraw is more a reference to the basic structure of the data than
it is a reference to a specific renderer, modeler, etc. I think the "dat"
captures this essense and identifies that it means data posts.
-John Van
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| (...) Well, that would kind of bring things full-circle then, huh? :) The reason for dividing up .cad.dat, BTW, is (a) to help organize [at a very superficial first-order layer] postings about parts, models, ideas, etc., and (b) to help focus the (...) (27 years ago, 29-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| (...) Welp, it feels nice to move around in, but it SURE feels disjointed from the rest of the CAD stuff, which makes it no fun at all in the final analysis. Cross-linkages could repair some of that, but that's just a band-aid, and it would just (...) (27 years ago, 24-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
52 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
|
|
|
|
