Subject:
|
Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:20:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4038 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger writes:
> Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>:
> > > I think we need to put a lock on the creation of any new commands until we
> > > can properly document the existing commands. This will prevent the
> > > overlap of functionality.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> I disagree. How can you prevent the various programmers from adding new
> functionality to their software? Why should development on all these tools
> halt until the non-existent committee figure out what's out there?
No, I think the intention is to create an official set of meta-commands,
which official software should recognise and/or implement. The important
point being that any file containing non-ratified commands will not make it
into the official library.
> > The standards body should also be focused and limited in scope to defining
> > and publishing the LDraw file format spec, nothing more. I would consider
> > the parts library and parts tracker a separate project, and the (albeit
> > loose) administration of the website another as well. More on that later
> > when I've had time to organize my thoughts :-) (Lar - anything to add on
> > this one?)
>
> I think this standards body should be compirsed of the people who write the
> programs. I do NOT think it should be a political body, at all.
I think programmers should be represented however I think also part & model
authors should also be represented, along with whoever holds the rights to
the Ldraw format. Politics will always appear in such things, hopefully we
can keep it to a minimum 8?)
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
154 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
