|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Francois Labreque
Subject: [DOC] Possible errors, omissions and suggestions.
Date: 1 Jun 2004 21:49:45
Message: <40bd3239$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Section 1.1.9 talks about POV-Ray 3.5. I know that these features were
introduced in 3.5, but it could potentially be reworded to point out that the
current version is 3.6
Section 1.2.7.2 is empty.
Section 1.2.7.7 is incomplete.
Section 1.5.7.10 has out of date info about the future availability of the
"Reach for the Stars poster".
Section 1.7.4 mentions "Halo" and "atmosphere" but not "media".
Section 2.1.7 Some of the typefaces do not match their description. E.g.
"keyword" is monospaced but not bold* and "C:\MYFILE.POV" is in all caps, but
not monospaced.
* In fact, keywords are not bold anywhere in the document.
Section 2.3.4.11 has the words "povmap.bmp on Windows systems" in bold. I don't
know if this is intentional, but it seems odd.
Section 2.3.11 has the same title as 2.3.3.3 but very different content. It can
be confusing when looking at the table of contents for chapter 2.
Section 2.4.10 has the same content as section 2.2.8.
Section 2.5 is entitled "TBD".
Section 2.5.1 mentions POV-Ray version 3.5.
Section 2.5.2.3 mentions POV-Ray version 3.5.
Section 2.5.3.1.1 mentions povray35.exe
Section 2.5.3.1.3 mentions POV-Ray version 3.5.
That's it for tonight. I don't think the SDL doc has changed all that much, but
if you guys think it's worth having a look, I could. I have to proofread lots
of stuff at work and I have developped an eye for it.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* videotron.ca */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: [DOC] Possible errors, omissions and suggestions.
Date: 2 Jun 2004 12:13:21
Message: <40bdfca1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks! However, we are fully aware that the documentation is not final.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: [DOC] Possible errors, omissions and suggestions.
Date: 2 Jun 2004 12:40:45
Message: <40be030d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <40bd3239$1@news.povray.org> , Francois Labreque
<fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> I don't think the SDL doc has changed all that much, but
> if you guys think it's worth having a look, I could.
It won't hurt if someone takes a look at them.
BTW, please note that the tutorial section hasn't changed much either, some
of the things you reported were no different in 3.5 docs.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:40bd3239$1@news.povray.org Francois Labreque wrote:
> Section 1.2.7.2 is empty.
>
> Section 1.2.7.7 is incomplete.
This is the result of less deep nesting that in the 3.5 docs. I think
both sections can be removed completely.
> Section 2.1.7 Some of the typefaces do not match their description.
> E.g. "keyword" is monospaced but not bold* and "C:\MYFILE.POV" is in
> all caps, but not monospaced.
>
> * In fact, keywords are not bold anywhere in the document.
I'll have a look at that.
> Section 2.3.4.11 has the words "povmap.bmp on Windows systems" in
> bold. I don't know if this is intentional, but it seems odd.
>
> Section 2.3.11 has the same title as 2.3.3.3 but very different
> content. It can be confusing when looking at the table of contents
> for chapter 2.
I've merged the two isosurface tutorials, only 2.3.3.3 will stay.
> Section 2.4.10 has the same content as section 2.2.8.
mmmm....
> I don't think the SDL doc has changed all
> that much, but if you guys think it's worth having a look, I could.
Thanks,
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|