Request for Comments: New Type Qualifiers

[Orion Pobursky]

I'd like to add 2 new type qualifiers to the !LDRAW_ORG meta:

Pattern and Assembly

- Since the pCC©/pNNNN suffix is used for both dual mold and printed parts, Pattern will be used to denote a printed part. There might also be a use for a dual mold qualifier.
- Assembly with be used to denote a shortcut that LEGO normally produces and distributes as one unit. Think torso with hands and arms, the 1x1 lever, or electric motors. This will not apply to further shortcuts that combine more parts, like the electric motor and cable shortcuts.

[Travis Cobbs]

I'd like to add 2 new type qualifiers to the !LDRAW_ORG meta:

Pattern and Assembly

- Since the pCC©/pNNNN suffix is used for both dual mold and printed parts, Pattern will be used to denote a printed part. There might also be a use for a dual mold qualifier.
- Assembly with be used to denote a shortcut that LEGO normally produces and distributes as one unit. Think torso with hands and arms, the 1x1 lever, or electric motors. This will not apply to further shortcuts that combine more parts, like the electric motor and cable shortcuts.

I'm personally not in favor, since it means that all current software (including LDView) will no longer recognize those items as being parts. It's easy enough for me to update LDView's code, but like I said, all current software will stop working. The reality is, from an end-user perspective, patterned parts and assemblies are both still parts.

It could be that LDView is the only program that pays attention to this.

If others disagree, you'll also need Unofficial_ versions of both Pattern and Assembly.

I feel that if this is necessary information, it should be provided in a different way.

[Orion Pobursky]

I'm personally not in favor, since it means that all current software (including LDView) will no longer recognize those items as being parts. It's easy enough for me to update LDView's code, but like I said, all current software will stop working. The reality is, from an end-user perspective, patterned parts and assemblies are both still parts.

It could be that LDView is the only program that pays attention to this.

If others disagree, you'll also need Unofficial_ versions of both Pattern and Assembly.

I feel that if this is necessary information, it should be provided in a different way.

Not the type, the type qualifier. Right now we have 3: Alias, Flexible_Section, and Physical_Colour. I'd want to add Pattern and Assembly. For example:
0 !LDRAW_ORG (Unofficial_)Part Pattern or 0 !LDRAW_ORG (Unofficial_)Shortcut Assembly

[Roland Melkert]

I'd like to add 2 new type qualifiers to the !LDRAW_ORG meta:

I don't see any problem with this so I'm ok with it if the part authors think it is needed.

[Travis Cobbs]

Not the type, the type qualifier. Right now we have 3: Alias, Flexible_Section, and Physical_Colour. I'd want to add Pattern and Assembly. For example:
0 !LDRAW_ORG (Unofficial_)Part Pattern or 0 !LDRAW_ORG (Unofficial_)Shortcut Assembly

Oh, sorry. I don't have any problems with it either.

[Orion Pobursky]

Any more comments? If not, this will go into effect and affected parts updated via script once I get the spec updated.

[Travis Cobbs]

Any more comments? If not, this will go into effect and affected parts updated via script once I get the spec updated.

We're supposed to vote (in the Standards Board forum) before modifying any spec. Since all three of us seem good with the change, the vote may be largely symbolic. Also, I'm not sure it's necessary, since it's unclear if a spec is being modified.

[Orion Pobursky]

This is a good point. I was seeing this as a library spec under my purview, but the header is more of an overall LDraw spec. I think maybe the Header spec needs to be rewritten to be Library neutral and I'll add header requirements into the Library standard.

[Orion Pobursky]

I retract this suggestion for now. I was eager to get something but upon further reflection there may be a better solution or a more nuanced approach. Once I figure out exactly what I need for the library, I'll draft a formal spec for discussion.