,
        Halloooo, Technet!

        In working on a netlist extraction for the new version 356
        format, a couple of questions come to mind.  I'd appreciate
        any guidance from the test community on the use of the new
        extensions:

        - "A" version blind/buried via descriptions, should these be
        included as standard behavior?

        - "A" version etch path descriptions, should these be provided
        as an optional behavior?

        - "A" version embedded component descriptions, should these
        be provided as optional?

        So the questions kind of become, "How will in-place tools be
        able to cope with the "A" extensions?"  My inclination is the
        blind/buried code, if included, could be easily culled from
        the file with the use of "grep" (or similar Windows tool?)...

        Thanks in advance for your opinions.
--

      Jeff Seeger                         Applied CAD Knowledge Inc
      Chief Technical Officer                  Tyngsboro, MA  01879
      jseeger "at" appliedcad "dot" com                978 649 9800

##############################################################
TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
##############################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TECHNET
##############################################################
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information.
If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or
847-509-9700 ext.5365
##############################################################