Subject: Image files

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:16:48 -0600

As stated:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   While the Connector Committee debated this point, I am wondering
   if the image files could just be "recommended" as .jpg or .txt formats.
   The statement "may be either" must be changed to "must be either"
   or else "is recommended to be either".  New formats might emerge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From a model suppliers perspective....  I think that this is OK.  However, 
would that potentially make it real difficult for the simulator vendors? The
simulator vendor will then need to support many different type....  what ever
type the model supplier wants to supply.  I am not sure that this is fair....???

_gus
[email-masked]
630-527-4617
r, DOES NOT relieve the specification from being incomplete or
confusing or inconsistent.  I would like to think that since the swath is such a
new concept, that extra extra extra extra care is need when reviewing the swath
related keywords...  I think initially some things may seem inconsistent.. but
in reality.. in the fine print...  do at least attempt to cover the bases.

SIDE NOTE:
To me the "casual end user" should NOT need to worry about the details of this
model.  That should be the responsibility of the people making the models.  As
such,  the casual end user probably should not adjust the model as supplied from
the manufacturer. (i.e. add a swath where one was not provided... this could be
VERY dangerous if you do not know how the model was created!!!)

If there is something wrong with the models implementation... shame on the model
creator.  Being a model creator, I should be the one to blame and should fix it
ASAP!!

----  See you at DesignConn...  By the way, some presentation time was set aside
for the IBIS Connector Specification Presentation.  If you would like, send me
an email with what you would like to know more about with regards to IBISCnn... 
and I could try to incorporate some slides into the presentation.

_gus
[email-masked]
630-527-4617

---

From: Mike LaBonte <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:21:46 -0500

Possibly the guideline for image formats could be to limit them to
the formats supported by commonly available web browsers. The list
for Netscape, for example, is:

GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) 
JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) 
XPM (X PixMap) 
XBM (X BitMap) 

And of course web browsers can display text, too. Taking this one
step further, could we have a reference to an HTML file instead of
just an image file name? The URL could point to local files, or to
elsewhere on the web.

I guess I am leaning in the direction of using web pages to show
information that is not intended for machine parsing. Although an
image file *could* be displayed in my own tool, I think I would
settle for a "View data sheet" button.

Mike

---

From: Steve Corey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:44:48 -0800

A word of warning on GIF and other LZW-based lossless compression algorithms --
they're proprietary.  Simulator vendors be forewarned -- you may get more than you
bargained for if you agree to support it.  See

http://www.unisys.com/unisys/lzw/
http://graphicssoft.about.com/compute/graphicssoft/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cloanto.com/users/mcb/19950127giflzw.html

(sorry if the above URL wraps)

If I remember right when we looked into supporting it, the fees weren't unbearable as
much as we didn't care for the legal hassle of maintaining a license for it.
Furthermore, UniSys seems to be constantly changing their licensing policies.  An
alternate public-domain format with significant growing support is PNG (Portable
Network Graphics).

  -- Steve

--
-------------------------------------------
Steven D. Corey, Ph.D.
Time Domain Analysis Systems, Inc.
"The Interconnect Modeling Company."
http://www.tdasystems.com

email: [email-masked]
phone/fax: (206) 417-3439
-------------------------------------------