Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Nov 1999 00:03:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1998 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote...
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
>
> > I think we should drop the CERTIFY as it is superfluous and
> > apparently adds more confusion than it clarifies!
>
> I'd like to hear from other people about this before deciding to keep it or drop
> it. I'll give my reasons to keep CERTIFY below. But first ...
>
> > Why not settle for:
> >
> > 0 WINDING (CCW|CW|UNKNOWN)
>
> Why not use:
>
> 0 CLIPPING (YES|NO)
>
> CLIPPING addresses the core issue (can the current file be BFC'ed or not?) more
> directly than WINDING.
>
> OK. Here are my reasons to proposing the CERTIFY statement:
>
> - CLIPPING and WINDING are both operational commands. They can be used multiple
> times in a single file, to change the setting of a rendering option/variable.
> The compliance-state of the file does not change with each occurance of the
> CLIPPING or WINDING statements. So, IMO, it makes sense to have a
> compliance-statement which is used only once per file.
But it's not used!
> - WINDING (and to a lesser degree, CLIPPING) address one part of BFC-compliance,
> but does not explicitly include all parts of compliance. So, IMO, it makes
> sense to have a statement which clearly indicates whether the file is compliant
> or not.
But it's not used!
> - I think it is entirely possible that other language extensions will be
> developed over time, and these extensions can 'reuse' the CERTIFY statement to
> make their own assertations.
But it's not used! Why would future extensions use the CERTIFY statement
if we don't have a use for it today?
I agree WINDING may not directly make you think about BFC, but I think
I argued why WINDING is enough - please comment:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dev:3220
/Lars
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) 0 WINDING (CW|CCW) as the 'certify statement', rather than 0 CLIPPING ON ? Winding is local. Certification is sort-of local -- only the local file is certified, but the local setting affects whether subfiles (in the same reference branch) are (...) (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) I'd like to hear from other people about this before deciding to keep it or drop it. I'll give my reasons to keep CERTIFY below. But first ... (...) Why not use: 0 CLIPPING (YES|NO) CLIPPING addresses the core issue (can the current file be (...) (25 years ago, 12-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
|
|
|
|
