Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!sun!pepper!cmcmanis From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: IFF form for 2D drawings (again) Message-ID: <63566@sun.uucp> Date: 9 Aug 88 19:42:06 GMT References: <11640003@hpfcdc.HP.COM> <6778@well.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 19 In article <6778@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > I object to this, largely on principle. Although this flavor of >CMAP chunk will only appear in a DR2D FORM, we already have a well-known and >-advertised (and -coded-for) CMAP chunk for ILBM FORMs. Leo, let us be serious here. RULE #1 for ILBM is : If you don't understand the FORM then don't look inside it. 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. And this must not be true for IFF to work. The beauty of this standard is that when you define your form (or a LIST if you want to screw around with FORM's) what is contained within that LIST or FORM you can change to your heart's content and still be compatibile with all well behaved IFF readers in the world. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.