From Willy: Define a standard for helper parts

[Milan Vančura]

I absolutely 100% agree with everything Roland summarized. This way authors have a big freedom and users have benefits of standardization. Win-win.

I add some details, thoughts:

Using Category ("Helper") the part description is more free to mention a helper set name as the first word. For example "Arrow" or "Arrow3D". Then, of course, other authors must follow this rule to announce their helper is a part of this set. But I feel it's impossible to standardize anything more about names because we cannot predict what kind of helpers people come with, in future. So let them to discuss that when time comes, for each helper set.

Same for rules about edges,as an example. Even now we can see some arrows are to be without edges but another have edges (i.e. Jaco's ones). So why to set any rule about edges yes/no if we know we cannot see the future needs? Crystal balls are too expensive these days...

The only rule about edges I vote for is "do not set any other edge color than the standard one. If you need such thing, find another solution." For example, as you told me to improve the set of plain arrows: instead of edges of color16 remove edges at all.

This way (of thinking about the standard) I believe the problems Willy raised (chaos in descriptions etc.) will be solved, the result sets of helpers are easy to find and easy to sort => easy to use, and the freedom needed to be able to add another helper or helper set in future is not blocked.

I think Roland summarized it well and I agree with it, I just added some details - maybe we can refine some points so it is clear how to prevent problems Willy mentioned.