Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ From: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Structured Graphics Standard Message-ID: Date: 17 Sep 88 21:57:24 GMT References: <5053@netnews.upenn.edu> Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 32 In-Reply-To: <5053@netnews.upenn.edu> > *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga: 8-Sep-88 Structured Graphics Standard* > *Ranjit Bhatnagar@eniac.s (1411)* > 4 or 5 months ago I posted a message suggesting that we need a > structured graphics standard for SIMPLE graphics - lines, filled > polygons and ellipses, and multi-font text. I suggested that as long > as Apple already invented Quickdraw, we might as well use that -it's > simple, relatively easy to implement (all we're missing is RoundRects > and arbitrary regions - ok, the latter ain't so easy) - and there's > 400 zillion people out there using MacDraw. The overall net response > was "nawww, we can do better than that." My response at the time (after checking with my MacFriends) was that the Quickdraw PICT format was documented by Apple for debugging purposes only. The actual code to manipulate PICTS is part of the Apple ROMs and is subject to change without notice. Developers are actively discouraged from writing code to manipulate PICTS directly. Hence, it is impossible to write an Amiga PICT reader and guarantee it to be compatible with Apple PICTS present and future. If you wish to use PICT as a basis for an Amiga standard, then do so. But don't try to push PICT on us for compatibility reasons, which (in my opinion) are the only really compelling arguments for using PICT. --M Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas "if you ain't ill it'll fix your car"