Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:08:24 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
rui.martins@linkNOMORESPAM.pt
|
Viewed:
|
2260 times
|
| |
|
|
> Steve:
>
> > > <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>
> >
> > There hasn't been any discussion on this in almost two
> > weeks. Does everyone like this spec? Any issues? Are
> > you programmers willing to implement this? Is it ready to
> > go to press?
>
> I think it is ready, but I will print out a copy, and check
> it tonight.
>
> Play well,
>
> Jacob
As I said it is not ready iet.
The questions (options) that where up in the air, are still there,
no one as discussed them, after this spec file was created.
I don't have much time now, but here are several problems.
Examples:
check the following two statements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To make this standard useful and effective, the LDraw parts library
> must be updated to follow the new standard. Since it would be difficult to
> rewrite the entire library in one update, the standard will allow for a
> mix of extended and unextended files in one rendering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2 Allowable Clipping. A subfile can only have clipping applied when the
> 2 following conditions apply:
> - All superfiles are certified.
> - The current file is certified.
> 2 - No superfile has disabled clipping prior to referencing this
> 2 subfile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allows a mix of extended and unextended files in one rendering, but
to allow clipping, all files, have to be certified !?!?
This basicly resumes to:
- You won't benefit from the changes, UNLESS ALL the files you use
are certified.
- Every already made (Old) model, won't ever benefit unless it is
redited.
This fact is a direct consequence of one of those questions (still in the
air) that is the fact if Clipping should be local or global.
This problem reflects appears because the proposed context is global.
Which I am against !
> In some cases, it may be desirable to assume that a file is
> right-sideout, (and therefore clippable) even though not all superfiles
> are certified. One obvious example is files in the ldraw\parts
> directory.
This paragraph is another one, sorry to say this, but IMHO
this paragraph it's a mess. (Could someone explain better !?)
So now we can bend some of the rules, depending on path or something
else (which is not defined). How is this supposed to be implemented ?
And what about the suggestion that someone supplied, that the default
context should be clarified ?
In my opinion the language extensions should be written with curly
braces '{' '}' instead of '[' ']', because the later means optional
parameter and the previous means compulsory parameter with possible
options if the pipe '|' is used.
So IMHO it should be like this:
-----------------------
0 CERTIFY { BFC | NOBFC }
default: NOBFC
-----------------------
0 WINDING { CW | CCW | UNKNOWN }
default: CCW
> UNKNOWN = winding direction is unknown or variable. This setting will
> disable clipping, until the winding is reset.
Using someones expression, the UNKNOWN is 'syntatic sugar', because this
will be implemented internally as CLIPPING OFF.
If the user want's to inform that the 'winding' is not known,
then he can make a regular comment, and use CLIPPING OFF
-----------------------
0 CLIPPING { ON | OFF }
default: clipping off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And by 'default' I mean, if the command is not given, that will be the
initial default state.
And some more things that I don't have time to write rightnow.
NOTE: Remember all the issues that Steve raised, when asked about them.
they haven't been discussed iet.
I which I had more time !
(I have a daughter now, 2 months old).
-------------
Rui Martins
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve: I have a small linguistic correction, but except for that, I consider the document finished: There will be a few requirements placed on the design of rendering programs, in order to achieve correct renderings. Any program should may violate (...) (25 years ago, 6-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) I'll make these changes. I think all your points have been discussed in follow-up messages, so I'll make my responses (if there are any) to those later messages. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve: (...) I think it is ready, but I will print out a copy, and check it tonight. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
85 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
|
|
|
|
