Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Nov 1999 22:28:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1577 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Steve:
>
> > Still discussing <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>.
> >
> > Here's another syntactical approach to BFC. Like it, hate
> > it, let us know what you think.
>
> [...]
>
> It is definitely a useable option. How will the
> specification document look then? If it is easier to read
> that way, then you have one proponent for that solution.
There are two possibilities for updating the document with this approach:
1. Just change the syntax expressions, and modify any syntax-specific
references. This would be the low-impact approach, with only cosmetic changes.
2. Rework the document. Add a new section which discusses the functional
requirements (must be able to turn clipping on and off, set the winding, and
invert subfiles), and change the existing "Language Extensions" section to
specify how the single 0 BFC statement implements the requirements.
I'll try doing #2 this weekend.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss wrote: Still discussing (URL). I posted a new version, with the short-form syntax, to (URL) Comments? Steve (24 years ago, 25-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve: (...) [...] It is definitely a useable option. How will the specification document look then? If it is easier to read that way, then you have one proponent for that solution. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- (...) (24 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
