 | | Re: MPD spec —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev) !
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: MPD spec —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | (...) [...] That looks like the right solution. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: MPD spec —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) Good point. I like the idea of a clearly defined new version of the file format. This would be a good point also to rename multi-part files in the second version to something relating to .LDR - perhaps .MPL could make the distinction? -Tim (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I can appreciate your concern. For now, let me develop a document that treats the two specs as variations. If you're unhappy with my results, we could easily rework it into two totally separate standards. BUT, IMO, a new standard that breaks (...) (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
