| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> In some recent discussion with Ryan Dennett on creating some resources
> for the OMR, he brought up what he felt was a discrepancy in the file
> naming convention. We discussed this and felt it appropriate to
> approach the group to see if 1) we should go about changing a standard
> and 2) if in fact we should change this standard.
>
> Recall some threads which decided this file naming convention:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/announce/?n=247
> http://www.lugnet.com/announce/?n=251
>
> And some individual messages I feel are important:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=84
> http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=86
Hey Tim, How does this one matter? That format I came up with was ugly and also
before we decided for sure to go to MPD and the submodel names we decided to go
with. Like Todd said, that format easily crumbles, but we are now talking about
the name for only the complete set's file.
> http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=90
>
> Ryan's discrepancy is with the main file name for the set, which in
> the OMR Filenaming Convention is 'main.dat.' He would prefer that it
> be 'mXXXX.dat,' where XXXX is the set number. He also said that he
> recalled suggesting that, but the decision was made against that.
>
> I'll let him defend his proposal in any replies he might make.
What I'd really like to see is it be the same as the MPD. So since we would not
be able to keep the 'm' on there using 8+3 format it would become xxxxa-yy
instead of mxxxx, mxxxx-yy, or mxxxxayy. We'd get into a problem with
inconsistancy going with either of the last options. If we went with the
filename being the same as the MPDname then you have perfect consistency. Also
with this format we would not be able to have the 'm' at the beginning, but
that would not matter since each set has it's own subdirectory and I don't
believe that there are any parts that use a hyphen. If I'm wrong please correct
me because in that case this might not work.
OK, on to the Pros/Cons list
XXXXA-YY PROS
1.Consistant-follows the set number and is identical to the MPD name.
2.Easy to find-when in its directory, it would always be at the top.
3.Follows the number&letter format of all the other OMR files.
XXXXA-YY CONS
4.It is different for each set, but do you really want the same name for all
your sets?
MAIN PROS
5.Consistant-is the same in each set, but do you really want the same name for
all your sets?
6.Easy to find-when in its directory, it would always be at the top.
MAIN CONS
7.doesn't follow the letter&number format of all other OMR files.
Both 3 and 7 could go either way(pro or con) depending on how you look at it.
There are more that I have thought of over the past couple of days, but my
brain's dead right now.
Ryan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | OMR Filenaming Standard Change?
|
| In some recent discussion with Ryan Dennett on creating some resources for the OMR, he brought up what he felt was a discrepancy in the file naming convention. We discussed this and felt it appropriate to approach the group to see if 1) we should go (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
