Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!linac!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!kadie
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: CGM/PHIGS use?
Message-ID: <1991Jan17.141901.21653@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 91 14:19:01 GMT
References: <1991Jan16.204639.3679@linus.mitre.org>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 20

In <1991Jan16.204639.3679@linus.mitre.org> cazier@mbunix.mitre.org (Cazier) writes:

>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?

The most recent PC Magazine (vol 10, #2), p. 245, talks about
CGM ("CGM: The Nonstandard Standard").

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign