Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!hartzell
From: hartzell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (George Hartzell)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: fig as standard?
Message-ID: <3562@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 19 Sep 88 22:22:01 GMT
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: hartzell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (George Hartzell)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 21


I have some undergraduate students who are going to work on a simple
package for doing x-y graphs and histograms.  Ultimately there will be a
menu driven interface, a batch and/or custom (pic like) language
interface, and a library of routines that can be used for other
applications.  It seems to me that there are now several graphics
editors that use the "fig format", so it makes sense to me to use it if
possible.  This has the advantage that other people have already written
the translators, etc...  What I don't know is whether there are any
significant drawbacks to using it.  Some degree of device independence
is important (different flavors of laser printers, etc...), and it is
important that we be able to include these figures in troff and TeX
documents.

I have found the transfig package (from june.cs.washington.edu), which
has some documentation about the fig stuff.  Is there anything else that
I would find helpful.  Does anyone have any helpful hints?
g.
George Hartzell			                 (303) 492-4535
MCD Biology, University of Colorado-Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
hartzell@Boulder.Colorado.EDU  ..!{ncar,nbires}!boulder!hartzell