 | | Re: Future extension of dat files? —Michael Lachmann
| | | | (...) Thanks, that was it, what I wanted to know. For the next version I'm planning to register this extension instead of .dat. Although I'll still support dat MLCad will write .ldr by default - still allowing the user to specify something else. I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future extension of dat files? —Tim Courtney
| | | | | (...) No problem. (...) Sounds good! Thanks, Michael. (...) Yeah, .dat from the get-go was too ambiguous, and there's been a need for LDraw files to have their own unique extension for quite some time. The other issue is what to do with parts - from (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future extension of dat files? —Michael Lachmann
| | | | | (...) I know, I'm not Steve, but I think leaving library extensions as they are shouldn't be a problem since you do not regulary open library files, but models. As long as the editors and viewers accept both extensions it should be fine. Just we (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | |
