Re: wherefore CGM?

Joel N. Weber II (
Sun, 8 Dec 1996 13:50:51 -1000 (HST)

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 13:50:51 -1000 (HST)
From: "Joel N. Weber II" <>
To: David Perrell <>
cc: Walter Ian Kaye <>,
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM?
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>

On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, David Perrell wrote:

> Binary CGM is a relatively compact representation of 2D objects on a
> plane, and includes vectors, regular shapes, spline curves, and bitmap
> tiling. It's good for representing images composed of lines and filled
> shapes. Diagrams and maps that now must be represented as huge bitmaps
> could be a fraction of the size in CGM, and users could zoom into such
> drawings for greater detail.
> 3DMF may be an efficient representation of both 2D and 3D objects, but
> all objects exist in a 3D coordinate system. In addition to object
> shape and color, surface characteristics, viewport, and lighting must
> be considered.
> The next version of PostScript may have a more efficient binary
> incarnation, but CGM might still have more pre-defined elements and
> therefore smaller file sizes.

You still haven't answered my question: if you strip the preview from
the encapsulated postscript and gzip it, how will the size compare
to a binary CGM?  CGM might still be a win, but it won't be as drastic.

> I still say universal graphical UA support for inline CGMs would be a
> good thing (though if the spec is unavailable anywhere but from the
> grasping toll-takers of the ISO I might reconsider).

My understanding is that if you want the spec, you'll have to pay a lot
of money.

However, I'm currently thinking that E-scape will support inline
CGM files using gplot.  My main concern is that the version of
gplot I found doesn't compile easily, at least on Linux, but I
suspect that issue will be resolved eventually.

<>                    <>
"...For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  -- Mathew 9:13