Re: wherefore CGM?

Joel N. Weber II (nemo@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us)
Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:27:34 -1000 (HST)


Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:27:34 -1000 (HST)
From: "Joel N. Weber II" <nemo@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us>
To: Phil <ANDREWS@B.PSC.EDU>
cc: LAMBERT@B.PSC.EDU, davidp@earthlink.net, www-html@w3.org,
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM? 
In-Reply-To: <961207195859.20a1a14a@B.PSC.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961207152334.2991A-100000@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us>

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Phil wrote:

> gplot itself is a system independent cgm interpreter, with the concepts
> of output devices and controllers. Thus, if gplot has just an XLib output
> device, it will draw into a window, but will not handle any events.

So I guess what you are saying is that I should reconsider, and probably
make E-scape provide a window and invoke gplot as a child the same way
I'd use ghostview.

If that is possible, then it would be trivial to support CGM, and I'll
probably do that.

It occurs to me that the problem with postscript is that the language
is so complex that you can use it to generate a bitmap, but not
much else.  A vector-based editing program would probably need
something more like CGM.

Is CGM the ideal vector format, or should a new one be designed?

> Gplotm is compiled and linked with a Motif-type controller and an XLib
> output device; it should handle expose events correctly. There's also
> a gplotxv, etc..

Probably I used the Athena version of gplot, or maybe an Xlib only
version, because I don't have Motif.


nemo
                                                 http://www.cyclic.com/~nemo
<nemo@koa.iolani.honolulu.hi.us>                    <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  -- Mathew 9:13