rshuford@well.UUCP (Richard S. Shuford) (08/17/87)
If you have interest in looking at the latest version of the PHIGS graphics
interface (Programmer's Hierarchical Interactive Graphics System), you can
obtain a copy of the version now being put out for public comment by the ANSI
system agencies. (I don't know precisely what these committees like to be
called now; it used to be "American National Standards Committee X3 on
Information Processing Systems", which has a sub-technical-committee (X3H3?)
that actually wrote the document.)
The document is
BSR X3.144 Programmer's Hierarchical Interactive Graphics System
Quoting from the blurb:
"Allows graphics application programs to be easily transported between
installations; aids graphics applications programmers in understanding and
using graphics methods; guides device manufacturers on useful graphics
capabilities; and performs many functions currently performed by graphics
applications, thus offloading the graphics application development effort.
The standard defines an application-level programming interface to a
hierarchical interactive and dynamic graphics system. This standard was
listed for open public review in the November 22, 1985 and November 21, 1986
issues of \Standards Action/. [An official publication of ANSI.] It is
being resubmitted for comment owing to substantive changes in the text."
Single copy price: $75 within the continental United States
$97.50 outside the continental United States
Order from Global Engineering Documents Inc.
West Coast: 800/854-7179
East Coast: 800/248-0084
Please include remittance. This order must be separate from any order for
existing standards.
Send comments (with copy to the Board of Standards Review) to:
Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association
Attn: Catherine A. Kachurik
Suite 500
311 First St. NW
Washington, DC 20001-2178
Deadline for comments is September 29, 1987.
This information obtained from the ANSI \Standards Action/, vol. 18, num 16,
(July 31, 1987), page 3.
Comments for the Board of Standards Review should be sent in care of the ANSI
organizational bureaucracy:
Board of Standards Review
American National Standards Institute
1430 Broadway
New York, NY 10018
212/354-3300
The general instructions are:
"This section solicits your organization's comments on proposed new American
National Standards and on proposals to revise, reaffirm, or withdraw approval
of existing American National Standards. Identification of any known or
potential conflicts of draft standards listed with any existing standards may
be included and would be appreciated. Comment is solicited to ensure that the
views of all interested parties have been given full consideration....
In your response, please specify whether you approve or disapprove of the
proposal as an American National Standard. If you provide technical comments
with your approval, indicate whether approval is contingent upon considering
them for inclusion (1) in the current proposal or (2) in future revisions of
the current proposal. If you disapprove, give your reasons."
||||||||||||||||||
.....Richard S. Shuford, Siecor Corp. RD&E, Hickory, NC 28603-0489
BIX: richard ||| hplabs!well!rshufordkent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (08/18/87)
In article <3765@well.UUCP> rshuford@well.UUCP (Richard S. Shuford) writes: > >If you have interest in looking at the latest version of the PHIGS graphics >interface (Programmer's Hierarchical Interactive Graphics System), you can >obtain a copy of the version now being put out for public comment by the ANSI >system agencies. > BSR X3.144 Programmer's Hierarchical Interactive Graphics System >Single copy price: $75 within the continental United States > $97.50 outside the continental United States > >Order from Global Engineering Documents Inc. > West Coast: 800/854-7179 > East Coast: 800/248-0084 Much as I would like the chance to comment on PHIGS (I spent 4.5 years as a member of ANSI's X3H3 while we developed GKS and PHIGS was on a back burner), there is no way my private resources (the only ones I have!) extend to paying $75 for a draft standards document. In fact, the companies and government agencies for whom I have worked in the past would be highly reluctant to approve spending so much for a disposable document. If ANSI is sincerely soliciting comments on standards, it should provide the draft standards in microfiche or other low cost form in a $5 price range. The current price seems designed to harm the standardization process since it has the effect of simply excluding most interested participants by monetary coercion. Sure cuts down on the number of comments to which the committee must reply, though! ;-) Kent, the man from xanth. -- Kent Paul Dolan, LCDR, NOAA, Retired; ODU MSCS grad student // Yet UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,harvard}!xanth!kent // Another CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu \\ // Happy USPost: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Virginia 23501-1559 \// Amigan! Voice : (804) 587-7760 -=][> Last one to Ceres is a rotten egg! -=][>
tj@utgpu.UUCP (08/19/87)
I vote for fiche, fer sure I am not spending $90+ (Canada) for the document, neither will my company, but I would be interested in fiche of it. tj .
13501ADC@MSU.BITNET (Alan Cabrera) (08/20/87)
Seventyfive dollars seems a bit steep. It would be nice to get the document in some other form. Maybe it could be available via Anonymous FTP?
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (08/22/87)
In article tj@gpu.utcs.UUCP (tj) writes: >I vote for fiche, fer sure I am not spending $90+ (Canada) for the document, >neither will my company, but I would be interested in fiche of it. >tj I'll take mine on tape. -- Richard Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {akgua, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard "It's too dark to put the key in my ignition..."
kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (08/23/87)
In article <1300@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article tj@gpu.utcs.UUCP (tj) writes: >>I vote for fiche, fer sure I am not spending $90+ (Canada) for the document, >>neither will my company, but I would be interested in fiche of it. >>tj > > >I'll take mine on tape. > > You wouldn't get much use out of it that way. Graphics standards tend to be chock full of illustrations, without which the text is pretty valueless. This is also a response to the previous posting requesting anonymous ftp. Fiche is by far the most practical cheap means, and it surprises me that ANSI hasn't already formed an agreement with NTIS (the National Technical Information Service) to distribute draft standards in fiche. It's been a while, but last time I was using NTIS, the prices ran around $3.75 for the first sheet of fiche (~80 pages) and $.50 or so for each additional sheet, quite an improvement over $75. The administrative problem here would be assuring that fiche copies were available to allow timely reviews, with more than one organization involved in producing the fiche. Of course, once such a mechanism were in place, IEEE, EIA and the dozens (really!) of other standards making organizations could avail themselves of it, too. Once upon a time ANSI X3 was funded completely by CBEMA, (and other branches, I presume, by corresponding corporate interest groups) but I have heard comments more recently that selling standards has become a big business, and that ANSI now is funded in large part by sales of standards documents. While I can sympathize with this for ANS documents, it seems completely inappropriate for dpANS doucuents (drafts), because of the very real danger of distorting the standards making process by excluding, for example, academic faculty and student commentors, who frequently have the time and expertise to make worthwhile improvements to the standards, but not the funds to procure and read the drafts at the current ANSI prices. Does anyone have a useful solution for this problem anent PHIGS? Kent, the man from xanth.
webber@topaz.rutgers.edu (Webber) (08/24/87)
In article <2234@xanth.UUCP>, kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > In article <1300@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > >I'll take mine on tape. > You wouldn't get much use out of it that way. Graphics standards tend to > be chock full of illustrations, without which the text is pretty valueless. > This is also a response to the previous posting requesting anonymous ftp. In the most recent document: Public Review - PHIGS+Functional Description - Revision 2.0 - Jul 20, 1987, there are NO FIGURES (82 pages on extending PHIGS for rendering). The main PHIGS document, X3H3/85-21(X3H31/85-05) Revised:2/18/85, 473 pages with on page 37 a figure illustrating the concept of hierarchy on page 42 a figure illustrating the concept of a centralized data model on page 66 a figure illustrating basic parts of a font on pages 68-71 a figure illustrating character spacing and orientation on page 86-87,91 a figure again illustrating the concept of hierarchy on page 99 a figure illustrating logical input modes on page 101 another figure illustrating a hierarchy on page 196 the rgb cube picture on page 197 the hsv cone picture i.e., NONE of the 14 pages of figures in 473 pages are necessary for understanding of the document by someone already familar with Core and GKS. The PHIGS Fortran Binding document X3H34/85-13 is 125 pages with NO FIGURES. The PHIGS ARICHIVE FILE FORMATS document X3H3/85-21(X3H31/85-05) Revised 2/18/85 is 43 pages of NO FIGURES. So, the problem of porting Figures has nothing to do with the availability of the PHIGS documents I am familiar with. An online copy would be as valuable as the man pages on unix to people who use these standards. Of course, some day one would like to think that Figures would become an important aspect of graphics standards, but so far I haven't seen anything that couldn't be adequately handled by TeX. Recall that in the past, drafts of both the Core and GKS standards appeared in issues of SIGGRAPH's Computer Graphics quarterly. As to what to do with standard's organizations that refuse to provide information at cost, I would say ignore them. If there were any interest in portable graphics interfaces, packages, or files, the readers of this board could put together one that was good enough for the purposes of the readers of this board. In any event, GKS has taught us to distrust standards that do not come with accompanying generic implementations. ------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
anson@elrond.CalComp.COM (Ed Anson) (08/24/87)
In article <6813501ADC@MSU> 13501ADC@MSU.BITNET (Alan Cabrera) writes: >Seventyfive dollars seems a bit steep. It would be nice to get the document >in some other form. Maybe it could be available via Anonymous FTP? I agree, in principle. However, it appears that ANSI refuses to provide the document in any form but paper, and has it copyrighted as well. Since such documents are ANSI's only product, it appears they use the sales to finance their activities. I would prefer to see a soft version available, with some relaxation of the copyright, since I'm working on an implementation. Try as I might, I've not been able to get that. -- ===================================================================== Ed Anson, Calcomp Display Products Division, Hudson NH 03051 (603) 885-8712, anson@elrond.CalComp.COM
ksbooth@watcgl.UUCP (08/25/87)
SIGGRAPH did publish the GKS standard a couple of years ago, but this was the result of a long negotiation, a "financial settlement" with ANSI, and a fairly bizarre arrangement whereby SIGGRAPH was not able to include the normal front matter in our newsletter because ANSI demanded that the standard be published "as is". I am not an expert on the standards process, but I am told that the only way you can get a copy of the standard in "your country" is to get it from "your standards representative". This means that organizations like SIGGRAPH usually are not in a position to publish draft standards even at their own expense. A proposal for "PHIGS+" (not the PHIGS standard, but an extension being worked on by a group of interested parties) was distributed at this year's conference at SIGGRAPH expense (this was at the request of Andries Van Dam, one of the members of the PHIGS+ group).
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/29/87)
> ... it appears that ANSI refuses to provide > the document in any form but paper, and has it copyrighted as well. Since > such documents are ANSI's only product, it appears they use the sales to > finance their activities. I would prefer to see a soft version... While there clearly is financial incentive for them to continue this policy, don't forget that there are other reasons too. One major reason for refusing to provide machine-readable forms of standards is to make *sure* that the reader is seeing the complete and unaltered original, not somebody's half- assed idea of an "improved" version. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
anson@elrond.UUCP (08/31/87)
In article <8510@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > One major reason for refusing >to provide machine-readable forms of standards is to make *sure* that the >reader is seeing the complete and unaltered original, not somebody's half- >assed idea of an "improved" version. Of course, this is a major reason for their policy. Unfortunately, it has the (unintended) effect of reducing the quality of documentation that can be supplied with a PHIGS implementation. As an implementor desiring to abide by the copyright laws, I will probably be forced to issue three separate documents to application programmers: 1. The PHIGS Functional Spec (purchased from ANSI, of course) 2. The language binding spec (separate document, also purchased from ANSI) 3. A third document, detailing the specifics of the particular implementation, specifically stating our resolution of those areas that ANSI explicitly made implementation dependent, and admitting to any implementation limitations. The net result is that an application programmer will have to look at three separate documents to learn how to use a single function. I would prefer not to do this, but the alternative is to produce a "half-assed" attempt at paraphrasing the ANSI specs without violating their copyright. What I would rather do is start with the original ANSI spec, and fold into it the specifics of my implementation, as well as the binding information. There is no reason to alter the text of any of ANSI's specs. Indeed, I strongly prefer to reproduce them exactly. I just want to get related info together on the same page. Typographical distinctions between the various items on a page should be enough to avoid reader confusion. But, alas, such a solution doesn't appear to be feasible at the moment. If anyone has any other ideas, I would be eager to know them. -- ===================================================================== Ed Anson, Calcomp Display Products Division, Hudson NH 03051 (603) 885-8712, anson@elrond.CalComp.COM