Subject:
|
Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:58:34 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Rui.Martins@link./antispam/pt
|
Viewed:
|
1561 times
|
| |
|
|
> With this message, I am going to review the messages from the "Line in
> the Sand" thread, which started at
> <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3156>.
I think the discussion started before the "line in The Sand" thread !
> Current proposal: <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspecv4.txt>
It seems that it is currently on version 9 !
isn't it ?, but file name was NOT changed, OK.
> In <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3163>, Steve wrote:
>
> > Issue 1: should the CLIPPING setting be strictly local to each file, or should
> > it be persistent between files, especially be pushed downward in the recursive
> > subfile-referencing process?
>
> I believe this issue is resolved. Effectively, the explicit CLIPPING is
> local. Each subfile sets its own CLIPPING.
Well, if my memory doesn't fail me, I taught you were against local
clipping, because you wanted all files to have clipping enabled on a
reference branch to be able to do actual culling.
Maybe it was someone else, I haven't reread the entire thread to check.
> > Issue 2: What is this CERTIFY statement? That one came out of left field.
>
> This one is still in the air.
Agreed !
> IMO, we should *keep* the CERTIFY, because it has an explicit meaning
> that all other BFC tags can only imply.
>
> It's even more important the NOCERTIFY option be retained, because this
> the meaning behind this tag (that the current file is not wound
> properly, and/or does not have subfile references marked) is not
> captured by *any* of the other tags, either explicitly or implicitly.
I think there was a trend to change certify to something more, like an
enable for new features, something like "FEATURE BFC", the "feature"
meta-command I invented just now, just to show the trend.
> > Issue 3: Do all files (in the root-file to current-file referencing chain) need
> > to be certified to allow clipping, or not?
>
> This issue has been hashed out and settled.
Where did we settle this ?
Can't remember where or if (WE) ever did.
> > Issue 4: Do we need a WINDING UNKNOWN statement?
>
> There is still a NOWIND option in the proposed standard.
I personally don't think this is required, but I'not against it.
> > Issue 5: Can a superfile disable clipping, overriding a subfile's CLIPPING ON
> > command?
>
> Yes. There are various reasons that the renderer might override a CLIP
> tag for a subfile.
Well, I think you are mixing to things here:
- The capability of the renderer to disable all or partial "back Face
Culling", ans an user option or an automatic setup.
- The Superfile disabling/enabling sub files "back face culling"
The First is program related, and could be used to test the files, or if
the program finds out that because of some reason it won't be able to do
"back face culling well
The Second relates to Local or Global clipping setup, and the need for a
tree branch to be required or NOT to have all files with clipping on to
actually do "back face culling"
Two diferent things !
Don't you agree ?
Also could enumerated some of the "various reasons", if diferent from the
ones I mentioned.
see ya
Rui Martins
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) Yes, it did. But I'm pretty sure that all important topics have been addressed (or re-addressed) since that thread started. (...) Yes, and today it will change to version 10. But version 4 was a big rewrite, where the language changed from (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | BFC: LITS 2
|
| Rui has stated that there are outstanding issues with the BFC proposal that are not included in the issues list at the start of that proposal. With this message, I am going to review the messages from the "Line in the Sand" thread, which started at (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
24 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
|
|
|
|
