🚀 go-pugleaf

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.