|
|
 | | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
| (...) I'd prefer we say that local/absolute references are allowed, but provide guidelines to show that relative paths are usually better - easier to manage, easier to share, etc. (...) Yes, yes, and I'm guessing yes. (...) I think you are correct - (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Good question. Different programs have more (or less) success at handling this. L3Lab seems to have no trouble with it. LDLite usually does ok, but not always (unfortunately, I don't have an example). (...) There's no special syntax, the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Auggh! Hey, it's not too late -- there is no official BFC spec. Yet. :> Steve (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Right. Any "MPD splitter" program should include code to check that filenames and paths are valid, and either report missing paths, or create them, or ask the user before creating them, or provide options (ie, command line parameters) to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) MPD files should not be named ".ldr" (or ".dat")! Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
