[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
Hi,
There happens to be a newer version (1998) of the IDF specification:
http://www.simplifiedsolutionsinc.com/images/idf_v40_spec.pdf
Kind regards,
Bert Timmerman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bert Timmerman
> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 11:13 AM
> To: 'gEDA user mailing list'
> Subject: Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:geda-user-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Collins
> > Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 12:38 AM
> > To: gEDA user mailing list
> > Subject: Re: gEDA-user: Functional blocks and PCB format changes
> >
> > At 11:49 AM 9/4/2010, you wrote:
> > >On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 01:16:01AM -0400, Rick Collins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel!
> > > >
> > > > The spec is large because it addresses a wide range of design
> > > > aspects, which is one of the great reasons for using
> it, one file
> > > > for the entire design, schematic, layout, mechanical, etc, even
> > > > board lay up. So the compatibility issue is moot
> because any one
> > > > app only needs to deal with the portion that applies to
> it. Just
> > > > don't muck with the other parts.
> > > >
> > > > The "heavy" issue is a red herring (are you planning on
> > hosting this
> > > > on a cell phone maybe?) No PCB file format is going to
> > be easy for
> > > > humans to read. Bandwidth? Back to the MCU in the
> cell phone I
> > > > guess. "Ugly", now there is a great technical argument.
> > > >
> > > > But I suppose it is better to re-invent the wheel. There is no
> > > > reason to try to foster any sort of compatibility in
> file formats
> > > > between all the different CAD tools. There are always
> conversion
> > > > programs to be written, no?
> > > >
> > >
> > >This is not an emotional argument, but a technical one, and
> > the choice
> > >is not between XML and reinventing the wheel. (Sadly, my Lisp
> > >suggestion has been shot down - by better arguments than
> > popularity, I
> > >might add. ;) There are other formats to consider, and yes,
> > inventing
> > >one might be an option.
> > >
> > >How do you know PCB won't ever run on cell phones, or over a slow
> > >network link, or on an embedded device or network PC or overtaxed
> > >virtual machine? How do you know we won't one day need to
> work with
> > >1000-layer boards when suddenly it /does/ matter how heavy
> the file
> > >format is?
> >
> > So are you suggesting that we should, at this time, plan
> for running
> > PCB on a cell phone? Do you want to design PCB to work on
> overtaxed
> > virtual machines, if so, I expect there will be a lot more
> important
> > things to optimize than the file format which only impacts the
> > performance when reading or saving the file. If we need to
> work with
> > 1000 layer boards, I expect we would have computers which
> would be not
> > at all burdened by XML file formats.
> >
> > I'm trying to be realistic about the requirements. I think
> that the
> > 2x or 3x factor of file size of using something like XML
> would be lost
> > in the noise. The advantages of working with an industry standard
> > file format could be very large.
> > Of course as you or someone pointed out, IPC-2511B is not a well
> > established format. But to my knowledge it is the only one
> that spans
> > most if not all aspects of circuit board manufacturing. It
> seems like
> > a great idea to work with something this useful and I am
> pretty sure
> > that concerns with using it can be ironed out.
> >
> >
> > >Unless you want feature-parity with other CAD programs, it is
> > >impossible to have file-format-parity. So no matter what,
> conversion
> > >programs will have to be written. Creating similar file
> > formats won't
> > >help anything, other than to limit our own format, and potentially
> > >cause problems if PCB and another CAD program are able to open (and
> > >corrupt) each other's files.
> >
> > I don't agree that a common file format has to be
> restrictive. If the
> > file format is flexible enough, the program won't be limited.
> > Everything doesn't have to be included from the start. I
> don't know
> > if IPC-2511B is flexible enough for PCB and future ideas
> for PCB, but
> > using XML I expect it can be expanded easily. I don't think anyone
> > here has really looked hard at it. It may well be extensible. I
> > don't know. But I would like to at least consider it and
> not toss it
> > away without giving it a chance.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
>
> IMHO, the "problem" with XML lies not in the bloat, even a
> factor 10 larger would be acceptable, it's the <$TAGS> that
> have to be identical across all applications to have a
> "truly" exchangable XML file.
>
> I think that for an exchangable format for schematic capture,
> pcb layout __and__ 3D mechanical CAD stuff the "problem" is
> waaay to big to grasp in a forthnight and DIY.
>
> And there happens to be a standard of sorts which does just
> that, named IDF, some of the large commercial CAD vendors
> play this game already.
>
> In this playfield design files with 1MB < size < 10MB is not
> that uncommon these days.
>
> Welcome in "Utopia" mate ;-)
>
> Have a look at:
>
> http://www.simplifiedsolutionsinc.com/images/idf_v40_overview.pdf
>
> http://www.protel.com/files/training/Module%2020%20-%203D%20Me
> chanical%20CAD
> .pdf
>
> http://www.simplifiedsolutionsinc.com/images/idf_v30_spec.pdf
>
> Happy reading ;-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bert Timmerman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user