Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!gatech!gitpyr!robert
From: robert@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Robert Viduya)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Graphic file formats (was: 3d objects posted...Merry Christmas!)
Message-ID: <2824@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: Sun, 21-Dec-86 11:57:40 EST
Article-I.D.: gitpyr.2824
Posted: Sun Dec 21 11:57:40 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Dec-86 21:04:00 EST
References: <6901@decwrl.DEC.COM> <507@elrond.UUCP>
Reply-To: robert@gitpyr.UUCP (Robert Viduya)
Organization: Office of Computing Services, Georgia Tech
Lines: 57

>amamaral@elrond.UUCP (Alan Amaral) (amamaral@elrond.UUCP, <507@elrond.UUCP>):
> In article <6901@decwrl.DEC.COM>, rost@decwrl.DEC.COM (Randi Rost) writes:
> > I have created a library of C routines for reading/writing/creating
> > Object File Format files...
> > I'm not sure about distributing the sources on the network, but if
> > there is enough demand, perhaps I can twist some upper-management
> > arms to let me do such a thing.
> 
> Please do post the sources if humanly possible.  I have been looking for
> some reasonable file format that I can use where I stand a snowballs chance
> in hell of exchanging info with others easily.

There are other file formats floating around that will handle porting
graphics from machine to machine.  The one I'm most familier with is
Commodore's IFF (Interchange File Format) which allows to store not
only graphics but other info as well such as sound or even just plain
text.  The Amiga uses IFF and full documentation as well as a few
sample C programs for reading and writing IFF files can be found in
the ROM Kernal Reference Manual for the machine.

Putting my obvious bias aside (I own an Amiga) and looking at things
objectively, I would say that the best thing to go with is the new
GKS Metafile format that ANSI and ISO are supposedly working on.
I've not been able to find this particular standard in the GaTech
library (I'm not sure it's even an accepted standard yet), so I
can't really say much about it.  However, it does have a few things
going for it:

	o	It's a standard developed and supported by an
		organization devoted to standards.  These tend
		to not change too much as time goes on and when
		they do, it's almost always guaranteed to be
		compatible and always has a good reason for the
		change.
	
	o	Standards developed by companies tend to have a
		more difficult time being accepted by other
		companies, especially those in direct competition
		to the developing company.  Instead, those other
		companies tend to come up with their own standards
		(incompatible, of course) leading to a plethora of
		incompatible standards.  As an example of this, look
		at the various sets of control sequences used for
		terminal control.  It's only been recently that
		ANSI's X3.64 standard has garnered wide-spread
		acceptance.

Of course, there are drawbacks with things developed by a committee.
However, I think those drawbacks are more acceptable than the total
anarchy that would ensue if the standard organization didn't exist.

				robert
-- 
Robert Viduya					     robert@pyr.ocs.gatech.edu
Office of Computing Services					(404) 894-4660
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia	30332