rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (06/02/86)
In article <1214@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > >OK. VDI isn't as bad as I thought. >How thorough is VDI? >NAPLPS is extensible and already defined for 3 dimensional work. >It's current resolution is up to 4K by 4K and is conceptually >relative based on a 1 * 1 (* 1) screen (a "unit screen"). > It seems to me that they overlap in philosophy at the least. Not at all. NAPLPS is an excellent interchange format. This will probably be what your PC will "See" coming from the CD-ROM. VDI is simply a concept of implementation for NAPLPS. As you point out, NAPLPS is 4Kx4K, so you need to be able to "Scroll" windows that are smaller than this figure. You may also want to leave on NAPLPS presentation in one window while you view another one in another window. If you want to describe "windows" in NAPLPS, that does not have do dictate that these will be the only windows you see on the screen. VDI in whichever form (PC, GEM, OS-9, MAC,...) would have a relatively simple task of managing the various NAPLPS displays. The VDI would also have the task of "interpreting" the NAPLPS codes into the Graphics routines which display them. I would hope that NAPLPS becomes more commonly accepted as an interchange and storage format, the way ASCII is accepted as an interchange and storage format for UNIX text based systems. Imagine if VI only saved its "/tmp/EX$$" format, with it's linkage pointers, dead space, and "management" information. Nothing but "VI" oriented programs could display them.