Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:19080 comp.sys.amiga.tech:776
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!uwmcsd1!marque!gryphon!richard
From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal (IFF QuickDraw)
Message-ID: <4092@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Date: 19 May 88 06:28:56 GMT
Reply-To: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 65

In article <703@applix.UUCP> scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes:
>In article <15634@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> tws@beach.cis.ufl.edu () writes:
>>I think HP has a standard for their plotters which does quite a few of the
>>things you are talking about.  Also Postscript is great for describing pics.
>
>I was waiting for someone to say HPGL.  Pleez, you CANNOT describe a picture
>with HPGL; you can merely render it.  The same is true of CGM and NAPLPS and
>PostScript and many others mentioned here.  There is no concept of "objects"
>in any of these.  Attempting to derive structured graphics data from these
>formats is an exercise in AI.

While this is true, it's not germain to the issue.
It was my understanding that we were just trying to get an object 
oriented IFF standard, and while ones definitionof an object 
can vary, any of the mantioned standards will fit the bill.

You sounf like you're waiting for phigs, which is far far beyond the
scope of what I understand we are trying to accomplish here.

>If you study something like Adope Illustrator, you will see that even the
>inventors of PostScript do not use it, per say, to store structured graphics
>information.  Illustrator cannot import random PostScript files.  What they
>use are a set of PostScript DEFs made up to cutely "contain" the structured
>graphics info which they have decided they needed.  You would have to clearly
>define these if you intend to promulgate PostScript as the interchange vehicle.

I'm no expert on Illustrator, but cant it import Encapsulated PostScript
files ?

>The problem with attempting to come up with a universally accepted standard
>is that you need to get everyone to agree to it- if the standard doesn't
>account for the types of information which are critical to my CAD application
>(say 3D or sheared bitmaps, for example), then I'm likely not to use it.
>This is why ANSI and ISO have had so much trouble agreeing on and getting
>everyone to use CORE, GKS, PHIGS, etc., etc.     etc.

Sheesh. Somebody else want Dore, or Tek 4125.

>You need facilities to describe grouping, layers, fillets, constraints, etc.
>This is the stuff of Modelling.  Information regarding clipping, viewports,
>etc., is the stuff of Viewing/Imaging, which is a very different beast.

Uhhh, PS does this.


>The folx in comp.graphics would probably be able to enlighten us all...

The group is dead. While it used to be about graphics, people have all gone
out anf bought their own graphics machines and all that comp.graphics
does any more is:

1) Answer 
	a) where can I get refereces to ray tracing
	b) how do I convert RGB --> CMY
	c) can somebody tell me about fractals
2) Answer questions about computational geometry.

The group is all but useless; there is no significantly greater level of
experise there than here.



-- 
           Have a nice day or Klortho will rip your nuts off.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM                          rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard