LDraw.org Official Parts Library Standards: Introduction

[Orion Pobursky]

It's time to start discussing the LDraw.org Official Parts Library Standards.


I'll kick this off with 2 items:

1. Is the title "LDraw.org Official Parts Library Standards" a good title? Should we use something better?
2. Review the "Introduction" section and provide feedback.

https://library.ldraw.org/documentation/...troduction

Desired feedback includes, but is not limited to:
 - Content
 - Grammar
 - Page format
 - Page styling (i.e. the overall look and feel)
 - Page navigation

[Roland Melkert]

It's time to start discussing the LDraw.org Official Parts Library Standards.

Only nitpick I noticed at first read trough:

Leading zeros unless immediately before the decimal point must be removed (i.e. 1.5, not 01.5).

Found this a bit confusing, so 0.123,  00000.123  and .123 are all allowed?

Maybe:

Leading zeros unless at most one immediately before the decimal point must be removed (i.e. 1.5, not 01.5).

[Orion Pobursky]

Found this a bit confusing, so 0.123,  00000.123  and .123 are all allowed?

The first and third are ok, the second is not. This is already enforced by the PT submit validation.

Follow up: Should the PT autocorrect these errors and issue a warning instead?

Good feedback.

[Roland Melkert]

Follow up: Should the PT autocorrect these errors and issue a warning instead?

I think this can be an automatic correction (with a proven algorithm).

Maybe followed with a message about what has been corrected?

[Orion Pobursky]

Only nitpick I noticed at first read trough:


Found this a bit confusing, so 0.123,  00000.123  and .123 are all allowed?

Maybe:

I just realized that this is skipping ahead to the General section. I'll move these posts when I open discussion on that section.

[N. W. Perry]

1. Is the title "LDraw.org Official Parts Library Standards" a good title? Should we use something better?

It's good, assuming this is to replace the many current sub-topics: library header, library part number, library sticker parts…
Bringing all of these together under a unifying title would be a Good Idea™.

It would also be Good to differentiate the library regulations from the file format, by use of the words "standard" vs. "specification" (or some other). Right now we have library "standards" that contain various "specifications". Meanwhile we have the file format "specification" (though that is governed by the "standards" board). I still get all the different documentation confused with respect to these names.

2. Review the "Introduction" section and provide feedback.

I'll have more later, but just quickly I notice that the right-hand navigation sidebar on the intro section is mis-sized (requires scrolling just to fit the word "introduction"). Other pages seem to be correct.

[Rene Rechthaler]

The "auto-correct" should be done (and displayed) before the final upload
things which could be in auto-correct (maybe they are already there):
-tilde in subparts
-correct parttype prefix (subpart/prim on both part name and parttype)
-correct license

[Orion Pobursky]

The "auto-correct" should be done (and displayed) before the final upload
things which could be in auto-correct (maybe they are already there):
-tilde in subparts
-correct parttype prefix (subpart/prim on both part name and parttype)
-correct license

Good feedback. Despite my bringing it up, I think what the PT does or doesn't auto correct should probably be spun off into its own thread once we're done with section review