<[email protected]>, Brian O'Connell <[email protected]> inimitably wrote: >Yes, the question is too vague/generic. I usually attempt to discern test >requirements from individual standards, and target areas of >compliance/coverage from the directive(s). And, I use the scope of the >standard to verify its usage. Is this a valid approach?
Yes, it's best to think of both law AND litigation. 'What can I do so that, if I get to be a defendant in court, I can be reasonably unworried?' That doesn't mean taking a paranoid approach, but not omitting anything you can reasonably do. In the example in this thread, apply EN60950 (or whatever is the appropriate standard) even though the product isn't within the LVD. Go the extra mile, but not the extra parsec.(;-) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
