| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
>
> Perhaps we should define the spec with two levels: "strict MPD" and
> "expanded MPD". Strict MPD would require everything necessary to render
> files with ldraw:
Or perhaps MPD and LD2.
We have discussed the time for a new, not LDraw compatible standard years
ago. I don't like the idea of an "almost LDraw compatible" standard. Isn't
it better to go all the way with maybe type 6, 7, 8... commands than keep
building on a very good but sometimes not good enough foundation?
/Tore
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Good point. I like the idea of a clearly defined new version of the file format. This would be a good point also to rename multi-part files in the second version to something relating to .LDR - perhaps .MPL could make the distinction? -Tim (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) I can appreciate your concern. For now, let me develop a document that treats the two specs as variations. If you're unhappy with my results, we could easily rework it into two totally separate standards. BUT, IMO, a new standard that breaks (...) (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) These are good points. Perhaps we should define the spec with two levels: "strict MPD" and "expanded MPD". Strict MPD would require everything necessary to render files with ldraw: - All names on FILE statements follow the DOS filenaming (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev) !
|
65 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
|
|
|
|
