(2017-10-18, 19:35)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]Duplo Figure Brick Classic
Duplo Figure Brick
Duplo Figure Classic
Duplo Figure
This seems ok, but it also strikes me as being revisionist. If the original figures had been created in LDraw, they would presumably have been called "Duplo Figure", which means that the "new" ones would need a different name to distinguish them. Should we use "Duplo Figure Classic" for the original ones simply because we're late to the game in creating the LDraw parts?
This scheme works for me!
(2017-10-18, 23:21)Travis Cobbs Wrote: [ -> ]This seems ok, but it also strikes me as being revisionist. If the original figures had been created in LDraw, they would presumably have been called "Duplo Figure", which means that the "new" ones would need a different name to distinguish them. Should we use "Duplo Figure Classic" for the original ones simply because we're late to the game in creating the LDraw parts?
Indeed, but it wouldn't be the first time that we needed to change name of previously done parts to build a scheme coherent with newer parts...
(2017-10-19, 6:40)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ]This scheme works for me!
(2017-10-18, 23:21)Travis Cobbs Wrote: [ -> ]This seems ok, but it also strikes me as being revisionist. If the original figures had been created in LDraw, they would presumably have been called "Duplo Figure", which means that the "new" ones would need a different name to distinguish them. Should we use "Duplo Figure Classic" for the original ones simply because we're late to the game in creating the LDraw parts?
Indeed, but it wouldn't be the first time that we needed to change name of previously done parts to build a scheme coherent with newer parts...
We had such situation so many times. I remember that the word 'old' should not pass DATHeader tests. So I assume shall use a number or a type 1, 2 etc.
Personally I would prefer the type 1 for the first occurence and so on.