Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncc!alberta!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: the word "bitmap"
Message-ID: <1937@pembina.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jan 89 18:33:07 GMT
References: <8568@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <7549@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <8901050417.AA16210@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Lines: 25

In article X alain@dgp.toronto.edu (Alain Fournier) writes:
>I agree with Paul Heckbert that "bit-map" should be kept for 1 bit deep arrays.

Me too. The reason being that "bit-map" implies that each bit in the map is 
a full citizen of equal significance. In a monochrome raster with n-bit 
pixels, each pixel has a number of bits of different significance: i.e.
inverting the most significant bit in a pixel has a different effect than
flipping the least significant bit in a pixel. Therefore, each bit in an n-bit
pixel is not a full citizen and one should therefore refrain from calling such
a raster a "bit-map".

Or, as Mark Green says, a bit-map is a folded sheet of paper you get at the
auto club to help you find your bits.

>That leaves us without a good word for multi-bit-maps. My modest proposal
>is "swatch". The word means of course a sample of cloth or other material,
>usually variegated, which is appropriate. It is also short. 

Yes, but how about "raster"? It overloads the term a little, but not too
much. So one could say "n-bit monochrome raster", and be immediately understood.

-- 
Chris Shaw    cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (or via watmath or ubc-vision)
University of Alberta
CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !