Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!sho From: sho@tybalt.caltech.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Picture files Message-ID: <3684@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 07:17:52 EDT Article-I.D.: cit-vax.3684 Posted: Wed Aug 19 07:17:52 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Aug-87 06:54:42 EDT Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu Reply-To: sho@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto) Distribution: world Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 28 I'm kind of new at the mac so please excuse me if I am being dense. Is there any reason why PICT files (or any other type of file for that matter) are not used extensively as a standard way of describing pictures in the way that files of type TEXT are used for text? MacPaint could have a Save As PICT option in the same way that MacWrite has a Save As Text option. Sure, it would be a picture containing a bitmap, and would thus not be much different from a regular MacPaint file (do picture definitions use the same data compression algorithm that MacPaint uses?) but the philosophy of the thing would be different. If such a standard existed, we could have simple Finder functions or DA's or whatever to display both TEXT files and PICT files and not feel guilty about being application specific. I like the idea of having a graphing program which can store the image of the graph as a file which can be viewed quickly in the Finder, given to people who do not own the particular graphing program I use, or perhaps printed by the use of a simple program. Etc. With the risk of getting off the subject, someone said that having a Finder function to view MacPaint files was unpalatable as it was too application specific. I do not find this so, as the System already includes an fkey which saves the screen as a MacPaint file anyway. -Sho (sho@tybalt.caltech.edu, sho@caltech.bitnet, ...seismo!cit-vax!tybalt!sho) "What's wrong with using the word 'etc.' as a sentence?"