Subject:
|
Re: Future extension of dat files?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:48:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
509 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> 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 what I understand from our
> resident part guru Steve (IIRC), the part files extensions shouldn't be
> changed so they're always backwards-compatible with the original LEdit.
> Steve? I know we've discussed this a few times, but I don't remember your
> exact thoughts on this.
>
> -Tim
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 should no longer register the dat extension to any ldraw
related program.
At least MLCad will not have any problem accepting library files called
x.dat and models called y.ldr
Michael
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Future extension of dat files?
|
| (...) 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
