Subject:
|
Re: [Parts Tracker] Reviewing Parts FAQ
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:50:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
705 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky writes:
> Based on this FAQ, I get the notion that BFC is required not optional.
Ooo, I didn't realize that. Thanks for pointing it out.
> Maybe a rewording is in order. Something like:
Is it better now? <http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/reviewfaq/>
Now, we just need a "Part Author's Guide to BFC Compliance" page...
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: [Parts Tracker] Reviewing Parts FAQ
|
| Based on this FAQ, I get the notion that BFC is required not optional. Maybe a rewording is in order. Something like: What should I look for when I review a part? . . . . Check the Part for correct BFC (if the part is intended to be BFC complient) (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
