CompuServe Messages

I dunno. I think BIPAKS sounds better that BIPKAS. <g> How about SKIPAB? BASKIP? PASKIB? (Hmmm — almost sounds like Pascal!) SPIBAK? SPAKIB? PSIBAK? PSIKAB? Lotsa possibilities here! 🙂 I must say I think it was rather short-sighted of you to provide no UI capability to BXPs. I suppose it's possible for developers to brute-force build their own UIs if necessary, but they shouldn't have to. Even discounting what I discussed before, allowing BXPs to pop up dialogs for more info would have been quite nice — an advanced TIFF BXP could have allowed the user to select from a list of the various compression methods supported by the TIFF spec, move the origin, change the DPI resolution, adjust the TIFF for Macintosh compatibility, etc. An AVI BXP (presuming that BXPs can also do animation saves) could allow the user to select between standard Microsoft AVI and the better (but which requires either a 486 or a special coprocessor card) Intel Indeo compression. Without UIs, seperate BXPs would be required for every possibile variation on the TIFF, EPS, AVI, etc. formats, and the user would need to know which button to click (not to mention how quickly this could fill up your File Load/Save dialog boxes with BXP buttons!). I mean, how hard would it have been to allow BXPs to call the same UI interfaces as IXPs, PXPs, AXPs, SXPs, and presumably KXPs? Seems to me you would actually have had to have gone to extra work to REMOVE those calls from the scope available to BXP routines!