Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:24:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1547 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> I think we should drop the CERTIFY as it is superfluous and
> apparently adds more confusion than it clarifies!
I'd like to hear from other people about this before deciding to keep it or drop
it. I'll give my reasons to keep CERTIFY below. But first ...
> Why not settle for:
>
> 0 WINDING (CCW|CW|UNKNOWN)
Why not use:
0 CLIPPING (YES|NO)
CLIPPING addresses the core issue (can the current file be BFC'ed or not?) more
directly than WINDING.
OK. Here are my reasons to proposing the CERTIFY statement:
- CLIPPING and WINDING are both operational commands. They can be used multiple
times in a single file, to change the setting of a rendering option/variable.
The compliance-state of the file does not change with each occurance of the
CLIPPING or WINDING statements. So, IMO, it makes sense to have a
compliance-statement which is used only once per file.
- WINDING (and to a lesser degree, CLIPPING) address one part of BFC-compliance,
but does not explicitly include all parts of compliance. So, IMO, it makes
sense to have a statement which clearly indicates whether the file is compliant
or not.
- I think it is entirely possible that other language extensions will be
developed over time, and these extensions can 'reuse' the CERTIFY statement to
make their own assertations.
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve: (...) I _don't_ think CERTIFY should be dropped, but we might want to change it to "EXTENSIONS", since it is intended for listing which extensions to the LDraw language the file contains. (...) Yes. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve Bliss wrote... (...) But it's not used! (...) But it's not used! (...) But it's not used! Why would future extensions use the CERTIFY statement if we don't have a use for it today? I agree WINDING may not directly make you think about BFC, but (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| I think we should drop the CERTIFY as it is superfluous and apparently adds more confusion than it clarifies! Why not settle for: 0 WINDING (CCW|CW|UNKNOWN) This defines the winding of the following polygons and means that the file is "certified", (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
85 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
|
|
|
|
