Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: IFF form for 2D drawings (again) Message-ID: <2503@sugar.uu.net> Date: 19 Aug 88 11:09:02 GMT References: <11640003@hpfcdc.HP.COM> <6778@well.UUCP> <63566@sun.uucp> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX Lines: 21 In article <63566@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) explains that: > The simple reason being, that like any modular programming language the > scope of a chunk is limited to the FORM it is contained in. By forcing > _this_ CMAP chunk to look like an ILBM chunk you imply that all chunks > with the same name are the same chunk. He's not forcing it. He's recommending that, since the two chunks serve the same purpose and since they're both likely to be used by the same program, it would be a good idea to make the structures match. After all, the existing IFF standard has chunks that look the same in more than one FORM: look at the 'NAME', '(c) ', 'AUTH', and 'ANNO' chunks in 8SVX and SMUS. > And this must not be true for IFF to work. No, but if you can coalesce two chunks, why not? It's a net gain. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?