Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!cmcl2!seismo!cit-vax!jon
From: jon@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Jonathan P. Leech)
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: VDI/CGI
Message-ID: <425@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: Fri, 2-May-86 05:49:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: cit-vax.425
Posted: Fri May  2 05:49:33 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 4-May-86 06:49:24 EDT
Reply-To: jon@cit-vax.UUCP (Jonathan P. Leech)
Distribution: net
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 38

Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords:

    We are starting to accumulate a wide variety of  graphics  devices
(Sun, HP Bobcat, Symbolics, Rastertech, plotters, printers,  etc)  and
are interested in a common low-level graphics library.	The  CGI  spec
appears ideal, since both HP and Sun support at  least	parts  of  it,
but upon reading the manuals I find completely different  C  bindings.
My questions:

    1) Is the CGI definition indeed standardized, or still  undergoing
	revision?

    2) Is the lack of a common C binding due to
	i)   stupidity on HP's part
	ii)  stupidity on Sun's part
	iii) both
	iv)  C standard doesn't exist so there cannot be a standardized
		language binding
	v)   CGI is not yet a standard
	vi)  CGI is a purely functonal description, there are no
		language bindings
	vii) ???

    3) Does anyone make CGI  drivers  for  Rastertechs,  Imagens,  and
	other such graphics peripherals? If so,  who  are  they?   Are
	they available with source?   (Not  interested	otherwise,  we
	have too many machines to port software to).

    Any informative answers will  be  appreciated,  but  please  don't
bother to post unless you have HARD information. As  is  obvious  from
the above I can speculate as well as anyone else.

    Thanks,
-- 
    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/