| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tore Eriksson writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> >
> > 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:
>
>
> 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 keep
> building on a very good but sometimes not good enough foundation?
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
