Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mcnc!xanth!kent
From: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: PHIGS standard available for comments
Message-ID: <2234@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Aug-87 08:22:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.2234
Posted: Sun Aug 23 08:22:18 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 22:28:35 EDT
References: <3765@well.UUCP> <2162@xanth.UUCP> <1987Aug19.093748.21530@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <1300@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan)
Distribution: na
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 42
Keywords: PHIGS  ANSI  X3  graphics interactive CBEMA big bucks

In article <1300@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>In article tj@gpu.utcs.UUCP (tj) writes:
>>I vote for fiche, fer sure I am not spending $90+ (Canada) for the document,
>>neither will my company, but I would be interested in fiche of it.
>>tj
>
>
>I'll take mine on tape.
>
>

You wouldn't get much use out of it that way.  Graphics standards tend to
be chock full of illustrations, without which the text is pretty valueless.
This is also a response to the previous posting requesting anonymous ftp.
Fiche is by far the most practical cheap means, and it surprises me that
ANSI hasn't already formed an agreement with NTIS (the National
Technical Information Service) to distribute draft standards in fiche.
It's been a while, but last time I was using NTIS, the prices ran
around $3.75 for the first sheet of fiche (~80 pages) and $.50 or so
for each additional sheet, quite an improvement over $75.

The administrative problem here would be assuring that fiche copies
were available to allow timely reviews, with more than one
organization involved in producing the fiche.  Of course, once such a
mechanism were in place, IEEE, EIA and the dozens (really!) of other
standards making organizations could avail themselves of it, too.

Once upon a time ANSI X3 was funded completely by CBEMA, (and other
branches, I presume, by corresponding corporate interest groups) but I
have heard comments more recently that selling standards has become a
big business, and that ANSI now is funded in large part by sales of
standards documents.  While I can sympathize with this for ANS
documents, it seems completely inappropriate for dpANS doucuents
(drafts), because of the very real danger of distorting the standards
making process by excluding, for example, academic faculty and student
commentors, who frequently have the time and expertise to make
worthwhile improvements to the standards, but not the funds to procure
and read the drafts at the current ANSI prices.

Does anyone have a useful solution for this problem anent PHIGS?

Kent, the man from xanth.