Re: gEDA-user: RFC --- Land Pattern (Footprint) Names

[John Luciani <jluciani@xxxxxxxxx>]

Where did you find the footprint specifications for the various
resistors, capacitors and inductors? Please send the URL's.

It seems like a potential area of confusion if a z-dimension is
implied in the prefix but the x and y dimension is explicitly defined.
Like you said if one vendor changes their z dimension
for a particular footprint area or if one vendor makes multiple z
dimensions for the
same footprint area. 

Maybe the footprint name should have a z dimension in the body specification.

(* jcl *)

On 9/6/05, Dan McMahill <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John Luciani wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > After reading the second point (again) I think it needs to be
> > clarified. The point I wanted to make is that footprint names that
> > contain only an industry standard body size specification (0805, 0603,
> > etc.) are not used.
> >
> > The footprint names for chip resistors, chip capacitors and chip
> > inductors would be:
> >
> >   resistor footprint  = RESC + body size specification
> >   capacitor footprint = CAPC + body size specification
> >   inductor footprint  = INDC + body size specification
> >
> > Three different footprint names for the same body size specification.
> >
> > I will rewrite the second point when I update the document.
> 
> 
> ah, but if you look carefully, for example at CAPC1005M, INDC1005M, and
> RESC1005M, you'll see that the footprints are slightly different.  I
> think this is because the z-dimension is different on these packages
> even though they have the same x and y dimension.  Of course, I still
> think things become messy if different vendors or even different series
> from the same vendor have a different z-dimension.
> 
> >
> > On 9/6/05, Dan McMahill <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>John Luciani wrote:
> >>
> >>>  I have placed a first draft of my land pattern naming convention at
> >>>http://www.luciani.org
> >>>The naming convention is based on IPC-7351.
> >>>
> >>>Please send questions, comments, observations either to the list or to
> >>>(jluciani) *AT* gmail.com
> >>>(as appropriate).
> >>>
> >>>(* jcl *)
> >>>
> >>
> >>sorry for the extremely slow reply John.  In your document, the 2nd
> >>issue you mention about IPC-7351 is that for things like 0603 packages,
> >>they embed capacitor/resistor/etc into the name.  That's done, I
> >>believe, because of the differing heights of those components.
> >>
> >>-Dan
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> 
>