 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0tJoH6-0000V4C; Sun, 26 Nov 95 15:06 CST |
| Old-Return-Path: |
<miso!aol.com!GaryF40> |
| Date: |
Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:29:04 -0500 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15: |
20:40 1996 |
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"0rkPt.0.qgB.0RDkm"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Mark,
You are correct. The IPC Design committee recommends sending 1:1 design data.
The fabricator will adjust, for etch factors, at his specific facility. The
ssame should hold true for soldermask and solder paste stencil data.
Regards,
Gary Ferrari
Tech Circuits
|
|
|
