 | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) Exactly. -Tim (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
