Subject:
|
Re: Naming conventions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:04:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1211 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Gerlach writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Brian Lanning writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > TLG would be smart to adopt our nomenclature. Not Todd's but rather LDraw's
> > > nomenclature. Warts and all.
> >
> > Agreed. It's a very good naming convention. As clear as one could get under
> > the circumstances.
>
> As opposed to the naming conventions that LEGO has used internally for years?
>
> How about, instead of suggesting that LEGO change the way they refer to parts,
> why not ask them to share *their* naming conventions with the AFOL community?
Hey, that'd be great... if they provide pictures to go along with the part
names, like Partsref. In the meantime, Partsref seems to me to be the most
useful thing out there to make sure we're all talking about the same part.
Lego can call these parts anything they want, IMO, as long as the picture's
correct; we'll just use our names, and they'll use theirs (proprietary,
probably). I have no worries about the way I list elements on my Lego Direct
wants page (by Partsref number and name), because I know LD can just use the
Partsref database to see what I'm talking about.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Naming conventions
|
| (...) As opposed to the naming conventions that LEGO has used internally for years? How about, instead of suggesting that LEGO change the way they refer to parts, why not ask them to share *their* naming conventions with the AFOL community? JohnG, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jun-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
