Are standards for official parts too strict?

Re: Are standards for official parts too strict?
I know I should stay out of this discussion, but since I think I'm much the reason it came up, I can't.

Tim Gould Wrote:Allow small gaps in parts (sub 1sq LDU, with some discretion)

Believe it or not, in this case I agree with Willy:

Willy T Wrote:... our position is that we do not compromise on quality. Since there is the "Needs work" rule in place <snip>, we think leaves enough room for mock-ups and the like.

Gaps and (at least bi-color) overlaps in patterns are actual errors and mistakes made by the part author, that in deed effect the output from renderers, viewers, and editors. In most cases, such errors are relatively easy to locate and correct. If not, there's still the "Needs work" option.

Tim Gould Wrote:Allow duplication of optional lines (this one would be really, really good IMO)

This issue is new to me, so I cannot say anything for sure. But if it makes no difference to the output, and it would be really, really good in any sense, it should be allowed. Focus should be set on the output quality, not academical formalities.

Tim Gould Wrote:Allow comments in parts of form 0 or 0 //
Here is the major source of at least 90% of my annoyance. This is not a matter of output quality, it's a matter of the part author's personal touch, personal taste, personal expression vs the current LSC's temporary opinions and the PT reviewers' personal taste. As a part author, I cannot set my footprints in a part file in such a way it effects the output or endangers the functionality of any LDraw related program. Of course not. But at least I wish to format my "blocks of data" in my personal way, I want the freedom to use whatever spacers I wish and conclude the part file in my way, ie the same way JJ did. Once again, of course without endangering the functionality of any LDraw compatible program.
Even though it's most hypothetical it ever will mess up any LDraw program, there is still a very small risk that this comment will cause problems:
0 My comment
Because any newly made program that will use the "0 MY" meta-command should use "0 !MY" instead. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea to keep this kind of comments away from new parts, and when updating older parts, change them to:
0 // My comment
just to be on the absolute safe side.

Single "0" line and "0 //" are truly legal LDraw lines, as well as blank lines. Any LDraw software unable to handle (ie, skip in this case) these kind of lines, is not at all LDraw compatible even to the very basics of the LDraw format. How a part author uses these legal, basic LDraw lines, should be entirely up to the author. If an author wishes to make five blank lines in a row as his/her personal footprint in the part files, it is none of the reviewers' business. The LSC and the reviewers should focus on the quality of the output and not rule over the authors' personal style.
"UserName is the author's LDraw username. It needs to be optional for those past authors that still don't have a username."
should be changed to:
"UserName is the author's LDraw username and is optional."

So, the bottom line is: Don't compromize with the quality, but grant the authors freedom to add their own personal touch to the part files, as long as it is legal LDraw code tht don't mess up any LDraw software.

« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Messages In This Thread
Re: Are standards for official parts too strict? - by Tore Eriksson - 2012-03-10, 19:43

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)