Am 06.09.2018 um 01:07 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Technically, that would not be an explanation, but an example.
> 
> I want my POV-Ray lawyer.
> 
> 
>> You're right in that the docs on POV-Ray's UV mapping implementation
>> apparently presume the user is already familiar with the concept of UV
>> mapping.
>> For a person familiar with the concept, I think it is pretty
>> self-evident what `uv_vectors` does.
> 
> I'm not really sure what the point of that is.
> You may as well have a "dataless" document.
> The people who don't know what the data means won't understand it, and the ones
> who already understand it don't need to see it.

The people familiar with the concept still need to know what the syntax
in POV-Ray is, what the defaults are, what caveats are there, and the
like. That's what reference docs are for.

Reference docs are for people who know what features the program has,
and how they work in general, but don't remember the details.

> It seems like some strange "documentation for the sake of documentation" rather
> than what I'd expect all of that work that went into preparing it to be for -
> being a manual for the user.  There's a whole cubic mapping diagram to show how
> a texture wraps around a cube.  An additional sentence or two - as explanation,
> or example - either, or, or both - would likely suffice.

Feel free to pick up the glove you've thrown at our feet, and
participate in making it better.


> Characterize it however you'd like.
> It's an open-source free software package offered to the public, and one would
> hope that this is a forum where open an honest discussion is encouraged.
> I've voiced my observations, concerns, and suggestions for making the learning
> curve a little easier to climb.

Open and honest discussion is nice, but it's not necessarily specific to
open source software.

The key feature of an open source project is that users can /actively/
participate in improving the software, rather than jsut talk about ways
to improve it.

So if you /really/ want the POV-Ray documentation improved, don't just
tell us in what ways it is wrong - get your hands dirty and write up
revised text for the section (or a completely new section), complete
with examples and images if you like, and contact Jim Holsenback to get
it into the Wiki (which will eventually end up in the inbuilt help).

> So I point out that the documentation doesn't seem to quite answer my question,
> and the alert forum reader would surely, as an average member of my target
> audience who is already familiar with common 3D graphics, and the software
> package in particular, would be expected to understand that that I AM asking for
> an explanation.

The question you ASKED was:

"Probably a dumb question, but can only meshes be UV mapped?"

That has been fully answered by Jerome, (A) by a list of UV-mapped
primitives and (B) by referene to said documentations section as his
source of information.

To which you replied with comments about that doc section, of which
we're currently specifically discussing the information about bezier
patches. Which definitely hinted at the fact that you consider the
documentation wanting in that area, but the wording left a lot of room
for interpretation:

- Did you just want to express your frustration, to vent a bit?
- Did you want to point out a problem that you had already overcome?
- Was this about the /location/ of the information, or its /extent/?
- ...

Don't make the same mistake countless of women make when talking to
their spouse: Don't expect me to successfully read between lines. I'm a
man, man ;)


> But I don't believe I'm off-base.
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.advanced-users/message/%3Cweb.5b600737497a6101a47873e10%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.5b60
> 0737497a6101a47873e10%40news.povray.org%3E
> 
> #GoKennethTheDestroyer
> 
> Kenneth.  I want Kenneth as my POV-Ray lawyer.

Who, BTW, explicitly confirmed that /my/ reply to that thread - and I
quote verbatim - "was... reasonable" ;)

Post a reply to this message