Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?


Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#1
Stickers, are always (?) used to add a decoration (pattern) to a part. Whilst we continue to restrict ourselves to a 64-character part description, I think we could dispense with the word "Pattern" in sticker names.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#2
Remind me, what's the history around the 64 character limit? While I agree that the word at the end of a sticker description is (mostly) redundant, why don't we just do away with the 64 character limit; it seems kind of arbitrary anyway.
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#3
yes :-)
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#4
Please note that the current sticker spec only requires that the name begin with "Sticker". So I don't think this is something that needs approval from the LSC.
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#5
As long as pattern is in the description, I don't think that it should be in the name.

Thanks,
Scott W.
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#6
?? Description = Name.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#7
I see...the word Name means Description here (and in the specification)...

In that case, if Sticker is in the Description, than I don't think Pattern also needs to be in the Description.

Perhaps we could persuade the LSC to update the spec to mandate that the first word(s) in the description be the part category...preferably as categorized by Bricklink. The remainder of the description should be the Bricklink description and / or words that are more descriptive of the part.

Feel free to shoot me over the Bricklink description, but I would like to stand by their categorization key words. Our current categories don't mirror anyone else and don't always make sense. It would be wise to align our category key words with that of our patron's largest part supplier.

Scott W.
SteerCo Member
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#8
Scott Wardlaw Wrote:Perhaps we could persuade the LSC to update the spec to mandate that the first word(s) in the description be the part category

I'm not sure of it's required but I think that's how things work currently. It doesn't need to be a spec change, just a change to the Library standards.

Also, nobody answered my question on why there's an arbitrary 64 char limit.
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#9
I can't remember. I suspect it's one of those "it's always been that way" kind of things, and as such could be changed. However, changing it would require investigating the impact on current LDraw applications.
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#11
That's my recollection too.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#10
The first word of the part description isn't required to be the part's category, but according to the library header spec, if it isn't the part's category, then a !CATEGORY statement is required later in the header. My guess is that it's done this way due to the 64-character limit, but I can't remember for sure.
Reply
Re: Is "Pattern" superfluous in Sticker part names?
#12
Not really about the 64-char limit, but more about a compromise between a meaningful description and a desire to keep to a limited set of categories.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)