I have to give you guys again a reality check.
Please do not think, that a new standard solves your problems !
There are good standards out there, but implementation of these
standards is lousy. When was the last time, that you called your
CAD vendor, reported a EDIF, IPC356 and other Interface problem
and got an adiquate response.
So now what needs to be done:
1. Users must take compliance to interface standards more serious.
Report the errors and expect fixes.
2. Organizations must make more effort to certify CAD vendors for
interfaces. Interfaces must run a compliance test.
3. Standards must be copyright protected, that not every one can
run around and say : Yes, we have EDIF netlist.
Wolfgang Schenke
[log in to unmask]
developing interrfaces since dark ages of CAD.
> From ipc.ipc.org!DesignerCouncil-request Tue Nov 5 11:22:20 1996
> Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:50:25 -0800
> Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
> Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:56:10 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask] (Louis Dallara)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DES- EDIF formats?
> X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
> Resent-Message-ID: <"Dqnq41.0.Kd9.wkuVo"@ipc>
> Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
> X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/2213
> X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
> Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
> Content-Length: 4838
>
> My 2 Cents; My obversations;
> I sat in on a committee of the IPC-D-356 sometime back in 92'.
> IPC was trying to understand the problems, having set up CAD systems
> and Manufacturing teams to transfer data to manufactures from the various
> systems..
> Results in a nut shell..The problems are the users lack of consisency
> in the way thay do things. One problem being test coupons, nobody
> does them the same way.
> OK..do you get it ..everybody does different work arounds, and when this data
> comes out the standard didn't expect it that way.
> So as long as users all call things differently and do different
> work arounds they will be infective data transfer, IPC-D-356
> one example. So we have meet the emeny and he is us !!!
>
> My OPINION on EDIF is different it will become the defacto netlist standard!!
> Why..because too many be players are pushing it and it's the standard data
> format for VHDL and transfer to simulators.
>
> Lou Dallara
>
> >From "Pete Waddell" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > Ross is absolutely correct when he says that we will continue to have
> > problems in the future. In my mind (purely my OPINION) 5the only thing
> > that will bring D-35X into common use would be a compelling reason
> > from users. I am finally convinced that there is not an EDA conspiracy
> > to kill D-350. The EDA developers will support something when the
> > users demand it. Untill users have a compelling reason to use a
> > format/standard there is no reason to support it. All fabricators and
> > manufacturers DO NOT support D-350. The few that do and have offered
> > discounts on tooling for D-350 have not done enough to make the user
> > community aware of this. It has been a very haphazard effort.
> > Gerber became a "standard" because board shops promoted the cost and
> > time advantages (to the customer) of Gerber files, and because they
> > (board shops) began to demand files over films.
> > Gary is absolutly right when he states that EDIF is not adequate for
> > manufacturing - at this point. EDIF 4 0 0 contains electrical and
> > component data but is weak in manufaturing data. I've heard that the
> > IPC and EDIF are trying to work together to establish a data format,
> > but with all due respect to Gary the IPC and the volunteer committees,
> > volunteer committees by their very nature take an inordinate amount of
> > time to get things going. The true answer (again my opinion) is one
> > that will involve pain and dedication from the user community - but
> > that's a topic for other venues.
> >
> > Pete Waddell
> >
> >
> > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> >
> > Subject: DES- Gerber formats?
> > Author: [log in to unmask] at Internet
> > Date: 11/4/96 8:02 PM
> >
> >
> > On 4 Nov 96 at 12:33, Gary Ferrari wrote:
> >
> > >Ross La Gue,
> > >
> > >I would like to comment on a couple of issues you make. First, all
> > >of the bare board electrical test manufacturers support IPC-D-356.
> > >As a matter of fact, they are the ones that wrote to specification,
> > >and are responsible to keep it current. There are no plans, nor a
> > >desire to support a standard such as EDIF, since it does not support
> > >the manufacture of bare boards. What little support it has is
> > >inadequate.
> > >
> >
> >
> > My original comment to the Technet forum was that I didn't expect
> > a groundswell of support for IPC-D-356. None of the PC based CAD
> > packages I have used support it. Most have EDIF support. Also, I
> > originally commented that the netlist problem was a big problem.
> > That comment was made in the context of a discussion on SMT pads
> > drawn with RS-274-X macros.
> > In order to solve this problem we require the cooperation of the
> > EDA industry as well as the board manufacturers and testers. I'm
> > sorry if my reply isn't politically correct enough for you, but
> > the IPC standard isn't worth a hill of beans if we all can't agree
> > to use it.
> > If the bare board electrical test manufacturers are not willing
> > to support EDIF and the EDA vendors are not willing to pay to support
> > IPC-D-356, then we will still be having a big problem in the future.
> > in fact, if I recall, this same discussion several years ago in
> > the pages of _Printed Circuit Design_ mag.
> >
> > ---
> > Ross LaGue < [log in to unmask] > Dayton, Ohio
> >
>
> ****************************************************************************
> * The mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
> ****************************************************************************
> * To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
> * [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
> ****************************************************************************
>
>
****************************************************************************
* The mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
****************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
****************************************************************************
|
