Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!linus!linus!mbunix.mitre.org!cazier
From: cazier@mbunix.mitre.org (Cazier)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: CGM/PHIGS use?
Message-ID: <1991Jan16.204639.3679@linus.mitre.org>
Date: 16 Jan 91 20:46:39 GMT
Sender: news@linus.mitre.org (Linus's News)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Houston, TX
Lines: 11
Originator: cazier@mbunix.mitre.org
Nntp-Posting-Host: mbunix.mitre.org

The wholesale adoption of CGM and PHIGS in the federal Applications
Portability Profile may or may not come with some extra baggage. If 
a corporation were to adopt CGM as a graphic standard but already had
a reasonably large installed base of DOS packages and some investment
in UNIX and VMS packages what weaknesses would one encounter in such
a goal? Is it possible that one implementation of CGM is not compatible
with another? Do software vendors take CGM seriously or only as an "export"
feature? Will DOS CGM interface with VMS or UNIX CGM files? Can you dictate
internal CGM file management for vendor products and work towards a
rather seamless, transparent graphic file exchange. Does PHIGS hold up
to the same standards as placed on CGM?