Subject:
|
Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:51:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1372 times
|
| |
|
|
At 10:40 PM 7/22/99 , Todd Lehman wrote:
[...] snippety snip
> > One there is strict requirements for, the other there isn't.
>
> The .dat.models.sets group has always been for collecting unofficial
> renderings of official LEGO sets in LDraw DAT format...(presumably high-
> quality renderings and not hacks). The only thing missing from its charter
> is something pointing to a set of rules (or strict requirements) to govern
> what's acceptable and what's unacceptable, and that was never given because
> there wasn't anything at the time -- better to let it evolve and put it
> into place after more is known. So if there's now a document specifying
> a workable set of rules/requirements for LEGO-set models, then let's point
> people to that from the .dat.models.sets group. There's really no need to
> create another group just to get tighter restrictions...
Right..
> If a .dat.models.sets.omr group existed, then the first thing I'd do with
> the .dat.models.sets group is destroy it because it would no longer be
> needed. Then I'd rename .dat.models.sets.omr to .dat.model.sets, because
> there'd be a useless gap.
>
> In other words, if the problem is that .cad.models.sets isn't "strict"
> enough in its rules about what to post there, then let's simply fix the
> .cad.models.set group rather than creating a parallel one.
Now that's making sense. I was following the assumption that nothing would
change on cad.dat.models.sets and OMR submissions would be *allowed*
there. Could we change cad.dat.models.sets to the point where posting
there is an assumed OMR submission? Is that too much? At least we should
impose the OMR filenaming system on the group...
-Tim <><
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
Get paid to surf the web! Visit:
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=DGO655
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
| (...) Certainly! (...) Heck, I sure don't think so. The .dat.models.sets group was intended to be a serious thing. The only question in my mind would be whether to allow in-progress models there (i.e., without an OMR-tagged subject line) or whether (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
| (...) Cool... (...) Ok.. (...) I think it should go to cad.dat.models for unfinished ones... (...) Ok, I was under the understanding that .cad.dat.models.sets was pretty much set and created without the OMR in mind. This works, then... -Tim <>< (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
| (...) Searching through a potential lot of messages for the word 'OMR.' (...) But posting a submission to an OMR group and casually posting to a sets group are in fact different. One there is strict requirements for, the other there isn't. So it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
34 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
|
|
|
|
