 | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | (...) No, I'm saying that if anyone is thinking about adding a meta-command they need to, at the very least, post what they plan to add so that the community can comment and ultimatly say yea or nay. Once the committee us up a running thay will take (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to me. The community (or the "board") could suggest names, and keep track of what's out there - but a "yea or nay" power seems excessive. How, exactly, do you propose you enforce this "nay"? I (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) Point taken, but I still think developers should discuss what they want to add with LDraw.org and Lugnet.cad.dev so that they don't add something that's already been added or being developed. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) I agree that the discussion should take place - I'm just worried about the "regulation" part. Dan (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I really agree with Dan on this point. As I mentioned in another message, a standards body could certainly come up with suggestions for standard commands, but they wouldn't have any power of enforcement. About the only thing ldraw.org could[1] (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) Very good point. In my conversations with a few semi-outsiders to the LDraw community, they believed systems could (or should, I see your [1] and rase you that) be established to encourage participation and compliance, but could not/should not (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Paul Gyugyi
|
| | | | | But, isn't that more-or-less exactly what happens with the parts library? (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Not really. The important thing with the parts library is that files are accepted and added the distribution file. We don't even have a '0 Official' any more - now it's '0 LDRAW_ORG'. I was envisioning the 'LDraw.org Compatible' program to be (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) LDraw compatible, or LDraw.org compatible? ;-) You made a distinction before -- are you using the same metric now as well? Just curious. -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry, 'LDraw.org-compatible programs'. Which is poor terminology, I think. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) I agree. I don't think a program can be "compatible" with an organization. It can be "certified" by one, though: LDraw.org-Certified. Of course, this might have stronger implications than LDraw.org-compatible. On the other hand, maybe that's a (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) Certified does sound better in that context, and I think certification could be a good thing. We should figure out how best to frame it, but I think it would add to the strength and usefulness of LDraw.org as a central resource for all of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) The point of setting an 'LDraw.org Compatible' format would be to set the framework of LDraw files, not to restrict what can be in LDraw files. If a programmer wants to implement thier (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) Exactly. -Tim (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
