In message <[email protected]>,
dated Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Charlie Blackham <[email protected]>
writes:
The discussion concluded that whilst final responsibility would always
rest with the manufacturer (and Notified Body if used), that using the
latest state of the art standard would be perfectly acceptable or
perhaps even the better decision.
The committee that wrote the referencing standard decided to use dated
references, and that was voted on and accepted. So how can it be a
'better decision' to ignore that?
While the advantages of dated and undated references are pretty evenly
balanced, the main point in favour of dating is that the user ***is in
no doubt which edition of the reference standard to apply***. Teaching
people to disregard that seems extremely perverse.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
