Closed JeffreyWalker closed 5 years ago
I do not think this was intentional. @esilvia ?
Nice catch. Probably just a little transcribing error when going from DOC to GIT that no one had caught. Such errors are hard to notice, especially when the new order also seem logical. It's probably also the order that I would have chosen if I had been part of the LAS design committee at its inception in 2004 ... (-:
No especially since R13 is the old way
and Yes I'm the same Jeff Walker in those ancient posts
Wow! So you may have the early (and lost) history of the LAS format in your email archive ... ?
Could be.. What you looking for? You were around for the 2.0 proposal.
Yes. 2.0 was exactly the time when I got involved with LAS (to complain big time). But for me the earlier history of LAS (that was lost) is more interesting as our "young" LWG chair has probably never seen those early LAS discussion exchanges.
Dang. That most definitely was not intentional. Thanks @JeffreyWalker
Hm... is this something we correct in an errata of R14, or do we immediately publish R15 as a correction to R14? Thoughts? I'm thinking I fast-track R15 as a mostly errata revision, with this change and #78.
LAS Specification 1.4 R14 has reordered the MAX/MIN XYZs in the Header. Previous releases were MAX X, MIN X, ... MAX Z, MIN Z. New spec is reordered to MAX X, Y, Z, MIN X, Y, Z.