🚀 go-pugleaf

In response to the article:

>3/11/88 13:35       jlacoss@VENERA.ISI.EDU (Jeff La Coss)
>
> A problem with EDIF arises directly from the rumor mill (a local CAD
>sales office). I am given to understand one feature of EDIF is provision
>of a SPECIAL construct, allowing members of the CAD industry to follow
>local database philosophies. I believe this can be interpreted to mean
>
>	"As far as being an all-encompassing spec is concerned, EDIF has
>	 a hole in it that one can drive a truck through."
>
> Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to hear this ain't so
>

At Engineering DataXpress we are writing a number of data translators to
and from EDIF, including Schematic data, and haven't run into this
large hole you have described.  From my perspective you CAN drive alot of 
data (trucks?) through EDIF, but must do so on very well defined streets.  

Jeff, can you be more specific about what your CAD salesman said?  Its impossible to respond to such a general accusation.  Is this
person talking about the latest version 2 0 0, or some earlier version?
Is this reference to the natural and legal way to extend EDIF, called "userdata", which is to be used ONLY for data that the standard does not yet
represent and only for experimentation?  After a year of examining EDIF no one
has found a need for "userdata" to represent 2D graphic, schematic, netlist, or
masklayout data.  This means that EDIF so far has proven to be capable of 
representing these types of data in a neutral format which is not specific to
anyone's database philosophies.

Ok, I'll say it.  "It ain't so!"

John Eurich. dataxpress@cup.portal.com