🚀 go-pugleaf

[feed the paisley horsey some sugar cubes...]

I'm the [ISO WG2/ANSC X3H3] CGI Document Editor, so this information is
about as hard as you can get:

CGI is now up to "Working Draft" stage in the official milestones, with
a new improved version coming out later this month; we expect it to be
registered as a Draft Proposed International Standard this fall.  From
there, it gets one or two rounds of technical balloting worldwide (plus
a U.S. public review), and should be a real, blessed, official ISO and
ANSI standard in (are you sitting down?) late 1988 to mid 1989.

Of course, we are all anxiously hoping for (and working hard towards)
getting it to converge on major points, so we can implement an "almost
standard" version long in advance of that.  As you've noticed, several
companies (including ours) have implemented something "like" CGI,
"based on" CGI, "in the spirit of" CGI (you get the picture).  I
honestly don't know when it will be "solid enough" - that's a decision
each company, product group, or project makes on their own.

As far as bindings go, and C bindings in particular:  we deliberately
put all binding work on the shelf for a while, so we could get somewhere
on the substantive technical issues and nail the functionality.
Meanwhile, the work that the Language Bindings group has done for
the C binding of GKS will carry over - there is a "Generic Language
Binding Issues" log, a "C Language Binding Issues Log", an approved
abbreviations list (with algorithm for generating names), and the
example of the C GKS binding.  Once the work begins on the C binding
of CGI, it should be straightforward and go fairly quickly.  There was
a "strawman" C binding submitted a year or two ago, but it has no
standing.  I expect that some interested parties on X3H33 (particularly
Sun and System One) may generate a draft C binding from the CGI
Working Draft this summer if there is interest, as the CGI is now
far enough along to consider one again.

You are right in guessing that the non-standard status of C is holding
up having an official C binding of anything - there is alot of tracking
back and forth between the J committee (C language) and X3H3 to ensure
that the GKS C binding doesn't come out before the C standard, but that
it comes out as soon as possible afterwards (and not in conflict with
it!).  There is a ratified principle that the X language binding of
graphics standard Y cannot precede either the X standard or the 
Y functional standard (we can be sensible at times, if we try).

So...any company producing a "CGI-like" product has to invent their
own C binding (for now).  Not a matter of stupidity, but one of
necessity.  Once there IS a standard C binding of a standard CGI,
then each company will have to evaluate whether to overhaul their
product, build a standard shell on top of it, or whatever.  Meanwhile,
if anyone is about to create yet another C binding of yet another
"CGI-like" product, I hope they'll look at the CGI Working Draft
and the C GKS Binding for guidance.

Hope this helps! 

Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
 ...searchlights casting for faults in the clouds of delusion
______________________________________________________________________________
UUCP  : {hplabs|hp-pcd|hpfcla|hpda|noscvax|gould9|sdcsvax}!hp-sdd!andrea
UUCP  : {ihnp4|cbosgd|allegra|decvax|gatech|sun|tektronix}!hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea
ARPA  : hp-sdd!andrea@nosc.arpa
CSNET : hp-sdd!andrea@hplabs.csnet
USnail: 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA