Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oblio.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!oblio!jon
From: jon@oblio.UUCP (Jon Steinhart)
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: Re: Language bindings for GKS and VDI (VDM?)
Message-ID: <290@oblio.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 04:05:12 EST
Article-I.D.: oblio.290
Posted: Mon Mar 11 04:05:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 03:30:07 EST
References: <423@cadovax.UUCP>, <124@vecpyr.UUCP>
Organization: Counterpoint Computers
Lines: 37

> There is a C binding for GKS out now, but it has not been fully approved yet.
> The last set of changes were quite minor.  You can get any of the binding 
> specs from ANSI in New York (I don't have the address on hand).  

I am the author of the C binding.  It is nowhere near approval at this time.
The last set of changes were MAJOR, necessitating a major overhaul of the
binding.  Noone is working on this at this time.  ANSI in New York does not
have copies of ANY of the draft bindings.  ANSI X3H3 plans to make draft
bindings available through CBEMA sometime in the near future.  The best way
to get draft bindings is to join ANSI X3H3.   Call Barry Shepherd at IBM in
Austin, Texas.

> I don't think there is a Pascal binding done yet, but I have heard there
> is a BASIC binding. There is a FORTRAN binding.

Mel Slater of the British Standards Institute is the Pascal binding author.
ANSI X3H34 is submitting comments in hope that the BSI binding can be
adopted by ANSI.  The BASIC binding is being done by the BASIC language
committee.  They have made some changes so it is not quite GKS compatible.

> VDI/VDM (Virtual Device Interface/Metafile) is now being called 
> CGM (Computer Graphics Metafile) because there is a European Company
> named VDI (at least this is what I hear) that doesn't want to share
> the name.  The VDI saga is quite a mess.  The ANSI group has taken it
> upon itself to make VDI into a package like GKS (a higher level graphics
> development package, NOT a Virtual Device Interface, as it was supposed
> to be originally).  The "standard" has been in such flux that no two
> VDI's are the same (a standard??).

VDI/VDM were changed to CGI/CGM because the phrase "virtual device" has many
other meanings outside of graphics.  I agree that the direction of the CGI
has become rather fuzzy.  My usual pitch here:  if you don't like it, join
X3H3 and help change it.

					Jon Steinhart
					Counterpoint Computers, Inc.
					ANSI X3H3