+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: Models and Parts (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-18.html)
+--- Forum: Parts Authoring (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: Re: Generic (non library related) way of indicating the nature of a LDraw file (/thread-548.html)
Re: Generic (non library related) way of indicating the nature of a LDraw file - Tore Eriksson - 2011-08-19
Orion Pobursky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting. I'd go with 0 !FILE_TYPE. This may clear up a few issue but,
> as we saw with ldconfig.ldr, a new meta depends on support for the
> program authors.
The more I think of it, the better I like 0 !LDRAW.
For example:
0 !LDRAW Unofficial Moonbase Module Model
where "!LDRAW" and "Model" are mainly interesting for the programs, (but yet somewhat interesting for the human user)
and where "Unofficial Moonbase Module" is interesting for the user. (but could maybe also be of interest for a sorting/categorizing software???)
Why "0 !LDRAW"?
* It's good to have the information that it's a file in LDraw format, even for files that aren't directly affliated with ldraw.org. Or else, many private files without "0 LDRAW_ORG" will not even have LDraw mentioned anywhere.
* It's shorter than most of the other metas suggested. Keep in mind that this will probably be typed by hand by the user in most cases.
* !LDRAW_ORG is already used for similar information on file type and more. I believe a similar name for similar information could make sense.
/Tore
Re: Generic (non library related) way of indicating the nature of a LDraw file - Roland Melkert - 2011-08-19
I'm not sure about !LDRAW it still suggests ldraw ownership, the thing you was worried about ?
Also !LDRAW isn't very clear as what's the meta for.
Re: Generic (non library related) way of indicating the nature of a LDraw file - Tore Eriksson - 2011-08-19
Roland Melkert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure about !LDRAW it still suggests ldraw
> ownership, the thing you was worried about ?
No, it suggests LDraw file format, not "property of LDraw.org".
> Also !LDRAW isn't very clear as what's the meta
> for.
You've got a point there. But just a little one.
It's a clarification and metafication of what it's predecessors, for example "0 Unofficial Part" is about.
Re: Generic (non library related) way of indicating the nature of a LDraw file - Tore Eriksson - 2011-08-20
Travis Cobbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>I like 0 !FILE_TYPE. I'm not completely opposed to Tore's 0 !LDRAW suggestion,
> but I think 0 !FILE_TYPE has the advantage of being focused,
> along with solving this specific problem.
Believe it not, I can live with 0 !FILE_TYPE(!) Even though I still like 0 !LDRAW better.
Let's just hope it will not be confused with the MPD meta "0 FILE" by some more unofficial, home made MPD tool...
I think that's a greater risk than !LDRAW vs !LDRAW_ORG, that are more related to each other.
/Tore