🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <1059@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> phd@SPEECH1.CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>WE NEED A STANDARD FOR EXCHANGE OF SCHEMATICS!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes.

>>Proposal: If I get sufficient feedback, I will start posting schematics
>>in binhexed MacPaint format. For you Macintosh hackers, this is a familiar
>>format. I've also heard rumor that various PC programs read MacPaint files.

Pardon me while I puke.  An ASCIIzed bitmap raster as the standard?  Gack.

In article <1332@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> max@eros.UUCP (Max Hauser) writes:
>I think this is one of the most constructive ideas I have seen on the
>Usenet in a while, and I applaud Paul for proposing it. I do also
>think it could bear some further discussion, since the de-facto schematic
>representation that emerges may be with us for a while and it would be
>a pity to foreclose future flexibility or upward compatibility.

Excellent foresight, Max.  However, there is already a standard emerging
for transfer of schematic, simulation, layout, and various other information.
I refer, of course, to EDIF.  This has the advantage of having been carefully
designed and reviewed by numerous very bright people in both academia and
industry, and also is officially supported by too many companies to name here
(including TI, Daisy, and soon maybe even Intel :-).  There is even a
committee working on convergence between EDIF and VHDL (VHSIC Hardware Design
Language), so even behavioral information may soon be representable.

EDIF syntax is based on LISP, which makes the language easily extensible,
if somewhat prone to large numbers of parentheses.

I would STRONGLY recommend that anyone seriously interested in the easy
interchange of electronic design data should educate themselves about EDIF
before making ludicrous suggestions for formats like Paul's.

-- 
	Howard A. Landman
	{oliveb,hplabs}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard
	howard%cpocd2.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET