To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 1640
1639  |  1641
Subject: 
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:28:18 GMT
Viewed: 
1353 times
  
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Joshua Delahunty writes:
Lar said:
We're in agreement. My bone is with Joshua, an extremely clever fellow in
most every respect, except when he's wrong. :-)

ad hominem, Lar.  Tsk, tsk.

It's a subtle version, though.  Props for that.

"We're in agreement. My bone is with Joshua, an extremely clever fellow in
most every respect, although he happens to be wrong about this. :-)" :-)

Better? :-)

And parts authors are encouraged to make extensive use of KEYWORDS
entries, to help people when they are searching for parts.

Yes please.

Doesn't work in every package.

Fix or discard those that don't. Standards evolve and packages need to
evolve too.

Of course, it doesn't concern me QUITE as much, since any decent package
will allow user notes or even full renaming anyway.  And then each user can
have everything to his own specifications.

This is a terrible idea. Get the names right instead and get them adopted.
Unless you were opposed to the tower of Babel and thought imposing multiple
languages was a GOOD idea. I don't WANT to call things by my own names that
no one else understands.

See also the brickbay discussion groups where we are wrangling over
nomenclature as well. There is a significant faction that does not want to
use LDraw names because they are too confusing and too slow to get
corrected. I would use them even if they are confusing because consistency
is good. If Brickbay ends up with a different nomenclature (even if it's
better) that's bad.

There already are competing nomenclatures.  Heck, several names that I got
used to (standardized on) from James' work have now faded away, so I can't
find things I already knew...

I happen to like Mr. Hughes names a lot too (he tends to tread close to
"official" TLG usage when he can, of course.

Trust me, if Brickbay goes with a competing nomenclature from Peeron which
is different from LDraw this is going to be very bad. The Brickbay
categorization/attributification scheme is profoundly revolutionary. It has
the prospect of breaking the tyranny of hierarchy.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) "...fellow in most every respect, although _my opinion differs very strongly with his_" would be my preference. SURELY you don't see this as objective subject matter? (...) I'm pointing out the argument from the majority position here. I've (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) Wrong number, BTW. (...) "Double Curved Handle, Bottom Hinge, 3M", FWIW (...) ad hominem, Lar. Tsk, tsk. It's a subtle version, though. Props for that. (...) Doesn't work in every package. Of course, it doesn't concern me QUITE as much, since (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

56 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR