Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!mtecv2!al158305
From: al158305@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx (Gustavo Cordova Avila)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics
Subject: Re: Graphics Standard
Keywords: Graphics
Message-ID: <3381@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx>
Date: 17 May 91 01:05:28 GMT
References: <16281.2828002a@levels.sait.edu.au> <30600001@hpspdra.spd.HP.COM> <129158@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Organization: ITESM. Campus Monterrey
Lines: 27


   I don't think the best way would be to say 'send the data such and such
way becuz of....(reasons)', rather, I'd say that it should be better to create
the guidelines (by C=) for a "24bit.device" or "24bit.library" which would
have all the graphics primitives for such an adaptor, that way, many vendors
could just write such a .device or .library for their board, and application
program writers would be ensured compatability with any 24 bit board simply by
following the proramming guidelines, ie: using the .device or .library.
   Other benefits of this:
	* You can have several monitors if it's a .device, simply specify
	  a difrent unit number, if the graph board can accomodate you,
	  or if your device can handle various physical boards.
	* The device doesn't need to be true 24 bit, it can dither if it
	  needs to, simply let the driver do it and don't let the aplication
	  know about it (but have the information ready if a program asks
	  for a device config, or something).

   and many others I can't think about right know.

so, is this a good idea, or is it junk?

Gustavo

-- 
| Gustavo Cordova Avila		 | al158305@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx       |
| Electronic Systems Engineering | PL158305@tecmtyvm.bitnet	      |
+--------------------------------+------------------------------------+