Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:50:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1900 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve:
> See <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>
>
> There is a serious weakness in this document, 'certification' is not clearly
> defined. This definitely needs to be addressed.
[...]
> My definition of certified follows.
>
> A file is certified when:
> 1. The file includes a 0 CERTIFY BFC statement in the header comments.
> 2. The file complies with the specifications of the language extension, and
> does not include syntax or commands which conflict with the extension.
> a. The winding of polygons matches any occurrences of the 0 WINDING
> statement.
> b. The clipping setting is changed to mark sections which must always be
> rendered, either because they are double-sided or not compliant.
...with the inversion status.
> c. All subfiles which should be rendered as inverted are marked with a 0
> INVERT statement. No other 0 INVERT statements appear in the file.
>
> Does this sound OK?
Yes. You might want to change "INVERT" to "INVERTNEXT".
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| See (URL) There is a serious weakness in this document, 'certification' is not clearly defined. This definitely needs to be addressed. Currently, the only definition of certification is: (...) ... which is a bit of a typo. My definition of certified (...) (25 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
