 | | Re: OMR Planning - Almost There
|
|
(...) Maybe that's where the model editors would come in. But it's a headache nonetheless. (...) I was thinking along the lines of people impersonating others. But there are probably other rules too... (...) I was thinking that if you want ldraw.org (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Planning - Almost There
|
|
(...) Hee. :) (...) Yeah. (...) We could ask for all the model info, and the server will create the header with the submission. But then what about submodels? They'd need to have headers cause we can't have a bazillion fields for the separate (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Planning - Almost There
|
|
(...) faux pa (although the "paw" bit is funnier) (...) Unfortunately, not everyone is going to get the model header right, so you'll probably need (required) fields for name, email, etc. The only problem is that you most likely want a comments (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Planning - Almost There
|
|
(...) [snippety-poo] Good additions to the list. I think both our lists of rules need to be edited and refined for clarity before being published. And then examples added... (...) anyone?? That sounds like a good idea if that's what you and Jeff (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Planning - Almost There
|
|
(...) Doh! Yep, I did :) (...) The fopaw (sp?) of registering for posting hit me about 5 minutes later when I re-read my post. You propose a good solution. (...) That *could* be described in the Creation/Submission Rules pages. (...) We could make (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
