X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=ND4djF+rPF4UxJjTcwXjfA6BUgeMvkkbYbGMCYJyZ8o=; b=b7zPA3qNH7XMtVqfu5D2iTvFMM7PCjlYTGEbDY0mlCg7oqpURu+OWv4j5bMzyj7V+a lecF3Qk/ujCbt/yEUTT0Txf7RwxMX9XsOpChqlJbuHBBo6nNlljodDqTXw/4PWW1FxlQ e9/TO0XR1TXFc6O/kOiNJ9aG0gQtSvnWg4kzbKZLwKOsDOwMdbuMY4SLkgZEyj7o0Gb7 6kt+okcw8ls9E0yMYYCAYr3jQmoloz0OtDQIIRPZ2nV5v1upCCVy6M2iE8Bg7Qa8VdFB a2MSShAS4vSRBFTv3D4pPfaKbcDJLoh3glfEQOh8s7MXr71p3vd4thvGEgcU/gZxXLMJ pCgA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.132.3 with SMTP id oq3mr8894422igb.21.1433977062625; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:57:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:57:42 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Interchange formats From: "Ouabache Designworks (z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com)" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a9b546f1682051831cdc5 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk --047d7b3a9b546f1682051831cdc5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) < geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote: > For those of us who are not as well versed in our history of this > subject. I would like to know why so many common EDA formats have > failed? > Well EDIF and IP_XACT both failed because while they have seen wide adoption the standards were loose enough that every vendor adopted their own slighty different "Flavors" of the standard. Unless you went to the effort to read in all known flavors then you couldn't read in other vendors files. This was compounded by the fact that our industry keeps growing and the tools get new features that need new data base objects. A better approach might be to look at the standards that have succeeded and figure out why. Jtag has been around for 20 years and is still quite healthy. They did not begin by releasing one huge standard, They started with 1149.1 that simply covered the bare bones minimun that everyone had to follow. As new features were needed they would add them in a new dot level. They are currently up to 1149.7. John Eaton --047d7b3a9b546f1682051831cdc5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
For those of us who are not as = well versed in our history of this
subject. I would like to know why so many common EDA formats have
failed?

Well EDIF and IP_XA= CT both failed because while they have seen wide adoption the standards wer= e loose enough that every vendor adopted their own slighty different "= Flavors" of the standard. Unless you went to the effort to read in all= known flavors then you couldn't read in other vendors files. This was = compounded by the fact that
our industr= y keeps growing and the tools get new features that need new data base obje= cts.

A better approach might be to = look at the standards that have succeeded and figure out why. Jtag has been= around for 20 years and is still quite healthy. They did not begin by rele= asing one huge standard, They started with 1149.1 that simply covered the b= are bones minimun that everyone had to follow. As new features were needed = they would add them in a new dot level. They are currently up to 1149.7.
John Eaton







=C2= =A0

--047d7b3a9b546f1682051831cdc5--