On Dec 1, 2008, at 1:59 AM, al davis wrote: > Also, there needs to be limits. That is why I suggested the > limit: Formats that consist of lists of objects, encapsulated > in modules, each object has attributes and connections. That > limit will keep the interchange format simple.
That describes our schematic format pretty precisely, I think. A few weeks ago I showed a way to go "backwards" from a netlist to a degenerate, unreadable, but netlistable schematic: http://archives.seul.org/geda/dev/Nov-2008/msg00069.html I expect I'll use this for my next mother/daughter board design project, probably next month. So, what's wrong with our schematic format as an interchange format? Seems to work here... John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list geda-dev@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
