Hello Will,

I could not agree more that this topic is worthy of an article for our TFG journal. Perhaps exploring the different methods historically and/or application modalities. I have started a rough outline a few months ago because of our discussions here. I would love editorial feedback and perhaps a direct conversation at some point if your willing. I really do want to get back to some of my old Library haunts to refresh some of my understanding of the original contexts to this subject as points of literary reference.

I think the fact that we have only seen timber framing grow in popularity since the 70's, with many learning something new along the way, we are also going to see an expansion of ideas about it. Now with even more growth among younger practitioners we are seeing a melting pot of methods and interpretations of all manner of method and layout systems. With the Internet allowing exchanges, not only amongst ourselves, but also collegues in other cultures, this understanding will further expand I am sure, This interpretation will not only expand of recent layout methods (respectfully) such as Square Rule (being less than 300 years old) but also of the more acient methods like Scribe and Line Rule.

I further agree that good results and understanding (for ourselves) in how we arrive at our individual timber framing goals is the most important thing for each of us. It reflects the contemporary dedication to craft we all want to achieve in our give works within the craft.

I do not think (at all) you are alone in your distinctions or interpretations of current understandings within modern Western Layout Methods. I find your view(s) generally common among many in our craft today. This is a rather logical understanding (I think?) within a limited and small (relatively) normative culture such as our...North American Timberwright population. We (collectively) are limited to a very small selection of publications with a very narrow scope of exposure to the craft. This has expanded (greatly!) in the last decade with the internet, and other contemporary publications on the subject now coming to us in other languages and traditions. With this literary and technological advancement, we find ourselves in conversations such as this.

I like parts of your break down of the different Layout Systems. However I do believe they are too overly simplified and/or too interpretive (subjective?) and not reflective at all of the actual parts and/or applications of the give marking systems as they originated, evolved and are still applied today.

We can agree that...Scribe Rule...(in its most basic of understanding) is a matter of fitting one unique plane (or edge just as a shoulder in a joint) of reference into conformity with another. This is the way of it, be it stone, textiles, or wood. Especially in the bespoke aspects of the craft(s).

The other aspect of creating a...generic uniformity within a joint matrix..is by all means an aspect of...Square Rule. This was the entire foundational purpose of how this system evolved, being able to take roughly shaped (hewn or sawn) stock material and creating...generic uniformity...within the joint matrix of a timber frames design...be it for architecture or a ship. This was done (as Sean referenced above) off a reference plane and/or edge of a timber...with no other point of reference ever required, or part of the system. Snapped lines had no part of the original Square Rule marking and layout system. I have never seen, or read a reference (historically) to snapped lines being part of the system or how to understand its application and execution. The addition of snapped referenced lines has only been found in the most recent of contemporary timber frame layout systems as they have evolved in individual application from the melding of Line and Edge (aka Square Rule) into one amalgamated system. This is a reinvention in the coeval designs of timber frames today here in North America, and not of original context of modality.

As I offered earlier in above posts...Line Rule...has nothing to do with...Square Rule...in the historic context, nor (for the most part) with a...Framing Square....as we understand them here in the West. Line Rule (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, et al) is a system that has both scribed elements within it, and works on structural members that are very often round or organic in nature...so a square has little use quite often...as we understand their application within Square Rule.

As for a specific difference..."of how the traditional eastern methods are different...."...I'm not sure I could illustrate that more than I have thus far in context application of the three systems? I guess (??) I could offer another breakdown of the three systems from both the historic application and how they are still used (in their pure form) today, and perhaps for publication purposes expand illustrations of the different systems for clarity.

Scribe Rule...has a wealth and depth of technique depending on cultural evolution of the given system. From overlays of framing members (timbers), use of lofting planes both below (floor) and side (walls) in some systems, to the application of plummet tools/systems, and even some templating as it latter began to evolve into the next oldest system...Line Rule.

Line Rule...has almost (from what I can glean thus far) as old a history as the different Scribing systems. Lining system also have a deep and vast application of modalities within it depending on the cultures that apply it. Line Rule also has, or does have, aspects of Scribing within it as much (most??) of it is performed on organic shapes...and...does not have to rely on a Framing Square as we understand (and use it) here in the West.

Square Rule...historically in application (and as it was taught until recently to most Timberwrights) is solely dependent on the use of the...Framing Square...as we know it in the Western context. This is even reflected in the shape of the tool's two arms. The tools blade and tongue are sized according to equivalents to the most common standards in mortise and tenon proportions most common in Western timber frames. The Edge Rule (aka Square Rule) system was entirely dependant on this tool, and the referenced edge/plane of a given timber to be jointed...No other tools of layout are required to execute the marking of a given timber frame, other than perhaps dividers or story pole, and marking tools such as a Scribe Knife and/or Pencil, and for the better equipped Timberwrights a Race Knife.