Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!snll-arpagw!paolucci
From: paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal (IFF QuickDraw)
Message-ID: <162@snll-arpagw.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 88 02:06:32 GMT
References: <1760@van-bc.UUCP> <5967@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci)
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Livermore
Lines: 82

In article <5967@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes:
>In article <1760@van-bc.UUCP> lphillips@lpami.van-bc.UUCP (Larry Phillips) writes:
>>
>>In <4607@super.upenn.edu>, ranjit@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Ranjit Bhatnagar) writes:
>> >	By some coincidence, there already is such a standard: Apple
>> >QuickDraw.  So called "PICT" images consist of, effectively, a script
>> >recording a sequence of calls to the graphics library.  An additional
>>
>>By further coincidence, PostScript is an established standard, fits all the
>>criteria, and in addition, is supported on a great many more machines than
>>'PICT'.  [ ... ]
>
>	And. by an even more amazing coincidence, PostScript is just as
>inappropriate a choice as QuickDraw.
>
>	"PostScript:  The Inefficient Document Layout Specification Language
>for The Masses.  Yes, PostScript is just the thing for you "power-users" with
>disk space, transfer bandwidth, and money just begging to be needlessly
>consumed.  Why be efficient or clever, when you can have PostScript?"
>
>	Enough immature flamage (something I'm trying to cut down on).
>Here's some concrete minuses for PostScript:

I guess we will now have to list hearsay presented as fact.

>	o It's not public domain.

TRUE.  So what?

>	o Adobe charges what I understand to be a hefty licensing fee for
>	  the use of PostScript in any product.

Definitely TRUE.

>	o PostScript files, from what I understand, can get very large very
>	  quickly, even for relatively simple documents.

Maybe or maybe not.  If you include bitmaps in them, then they are definetely
larger, but if you include only structured graphics then it is not true.

>	o PostScript, from what I understand, doesn't know about color yet.

Definitely FALSE.

>	o PostScript **may** not properly address the "structured graphics"
>	  need we're looking for, since PostScript was designed as a
>	  document layout language (font creation, manipulation, etc.).

False.  PostScript handles structured graphics very well, thank you.

>	o Adobe is coming out with something called "Display PostScript".
>	  This implies that Display PostScript and vanilla PostScript found
>	  in laser printers aren't quite the same thing.  We want something
>	  that works the same on all output devices.

FALSE.  The only difference is that one outputs to displays while the other
to printers.

>
>	I still think NAPLPS is a better choice, if only that it will be
>cheaper.  I'm going to order the standard from ANSI, and check it out more
>thoroughly.
>
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape  ihnp4!pacbell -\
> \_ -_		Recumbent Bikes:	      dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac
>O----^o	      The Only Way To Fly.	      hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack")
>"Work FOR?  I don't work FOR anybody!  I'm just having fun."  -- The Doctor

Leo, NAPLPS may be the better choice (I don't now very much about it), but
certainly NOT because of your arguments.  I suggest that before making
such criticisms (that show that you do not know the first thing about
PostScript) you should educate yourself a little about it, and then make
an informed evaulation.


					-+= SAM =+-


"the best things in life are free"


				ARPA: paolucci@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov