On 2010-03-26, at 08:17, Carlo Wood wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 07:39:39AM -0500, Argent Stonecutter wrote: >>> Assume that the project will result in jackets >>> (the canonical example) can be tucked in and/or being >>> worn under shirts. Would you really still need it to >>> be converted to a shirt? >> >> If the project was going to achieve that goal, then they wouldn't >> really *be* jackets vs shirts vs undershirts any more, they'd just >> be "tops". But that's not what Nyx has proposed. > > That is not really true. The big difference between jackets > and shirts is that jackets have a texture on the lower part > too. Also, the default insertion point when wearing a new > item would still be different.
Doing this right (ie, starting from a clean slate, or going to 'new type' clothing with legacy wearables mapped to the new scheme when edited): 1. All tops would have a lower part. It would just be empty for many wearables. 2. The default insertion point would just be a suggestion, and probably just a number 0..31 (or even 0..255) "shirt" would be an alias for "16". _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
