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