Hi LP,



About Note 2 in the table 1-1 of J-STD-004A in English, "See 5.2 and 5.3" is a editorial error. When 5-24CN developed the Chinese version of J-STD-004A, we have found and corrected the error.



Now the Note 2  in the table 1-1 of J-STD-004A in Chines has corrected to be:



2. RO、RE、OR和IN的组成分类及L、M、H活性程度与传统分类如R、RMA、RA、水溶性、低固态免清洗活性分类的对比,见3.2节、3.3节及附录B。



In addtion, IPC has published the latest revision -----J-STD-004B in English recently. In Revision B, this note has been deleted.



Thanks







Hao Yu  郝宇

Technical Resource Coordinator

IPC China

爱比西技术咨询（上海）有限公司

深圳市南山区高新科技园南区方大大厦1807室

Rm 1807, Fangda Bldg, Hi-Tech Park

Nanshan District, Shenzhen

Tel：+86 755 86141218/86141219

MP：+86 138 2318 7909

[log in to unmask]

www.ipc.org<http://www.ipc.org/>

________________________________

发件人: TGAsia [[log in to unmask]] 代表 LP Koay [[log in to unmask]]

发送时间: 2009年1月20日 10:24

收件人: [log in to unmask]

主题: [TGAsia] flux type classification



Hi,



I would like to have better understanding on the different between old classifications with existing classification of the flux type. The old classification is R, RMA, etc. Existing classification is showed in table below (copy from IPC-J-STD 004A). Example question is RMA flux same as ROL0? I am not able to find section 5.2 and 5.3 for further detail from the document. Does anyone familiar with the classification of both system and their relationship? Thanks!



Regards,

LP