| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> 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?
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 LDraw compatibility should go a lot
farther than just letting us put macros in our files. :)
And, I'm not sure about using a linetype for delimiting macros. Since
the parameters are strictly text, should a new standard support
text-keyword commands?
> MACRO START mysubmodel
> 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3001.dat
> 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3001.dat
> 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3001.dat
> MACRO END mysubmodel
... but that's a can of worms I don't want to get into today. :)
Steve
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
