| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Because we ought to differentiate between files that can be
> processed directly by LDraw, and those which have to be
> filtered through another tool (a MPD splitter) before LDraw
> can render them.
>
> If we decide to scrap LDraw compatibility, this is of course
> a different matter.
>
> Also, if we want to maintain the LDraw compatibility of MPD
> files, the files they contain really should have names,
> which can exist on a DOS file system.
>
> And one further consequence of maintaining LDraw
> compatibility is that the meaning of a MPD file must be
> equivalent to unpacking/splitting it first and then
> rendering the first file in it with LDraw. Which means that
> one MPD file can not refer to another MPD file.
These are good points.
Perhaps we should define the spec with two levels: "strict MPD" and
"expanded MPD". Strict MPD would require everything necessary to render
files with ldraw:
- All names on FILE statements follow the DOS filenaming standard, including
the 8.3 format and character restrictions, and are case-insensitive.
- The directory delimiter is '\'.
- The filename of the mpd should not be the same as any of the names used
on the contained FILE statements.
- Only non-MPD files may be referenced by linetype 1 commands. The referenced
files may either be included in the MPD, or may be on the user's filesystem.
Expanded MPD would allow:
- Names which are not valid file/paths on any OS. (maybe this one should
be part of a "permissive MPD" level ;)
- Names are case-sensitive.
- Names may violate the 8.3 restriction.
- MPD files may be referenced as regular subfiles/parts.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Or perhaps MPD and LD2. We have discussed the time for a new, not LDraw compatible standard years ago. I don't like the idea of an "almost LDraw compatible" standard. Isn't it better to go all the way with maybe type 6, 7, 8... commands than (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Because we ought to differentiate between files that can be processed directly by LDraw, and those which have to be filtered through another tool (a MPD splitter) before LDraw can render them. If we decide to scrap LDraw compatibility, this is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
65 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
|
|
|
|
