 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0vq9wG-0000YGC; Thu, 30 Jan 97 21:46 CST
from simon.ipc.org by ipc.org with smtp
(Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0vq9q2-0000TYC; Thu, 30 Jan 97 21:40 CST
from atlantis.nconnect.net by simon.ipc.org via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
for < [log in to unmask]> id VAA03423; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:40:56 -0800
from dvischu.nconnect.net (dial229.nconnect.net [206.54.227.229]) by atlantis.nconnect.net (8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA07038 for < [log in to unmask]>; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:43:13 -0600 (CST) |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| TO: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Mon Feb 3 11: |
13:09 1997 |
| Date: |
Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:47:04 -0600 |
| X-Status: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Message-ID: |
|
| From: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| X-Mailer: |
Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) |
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I finally received copies of IPC-6011/6012 and don't understand the
furor over the new specifications. Admittedly a single reading is not
sufficient to make one an expert on a specification, but I found several
sections of the new specification refreshing.
Moving some information to 6011 makes 6012 easier to use for an
acceptability/performance specification. The changes to the
specification limits seem to reflect current capabilities and
practices. Clarifications to line and spacing width and roughness have
resulted in improvements to these criteria. (I can understand them and
explain them to others now.)
The most important addition to the specification is the inclusion of
default criteria. Many board users are fond of referencing IPC
specifications without understanding (reading? - sorry my opinion
slipped out) them first. The inclusion of the default criteria will
help validate fabricator recommendations for specification criteria.
Sorry about the lag between this post and the other postings on this
subject.
Don Vischulis
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|
