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. *
****************************************************************************