GENT, BELGIUM -- The latest revision to the Gerber electronics data transfer specification maintains the format but thoroughly revises the specification for clarity and ease of use, says Ucamco.

Ucamco, which released revision I2 of the venerable data exchange format this week, says it analyzed more than 10,000 real-life Gerber files from clients in Japan, Asia-Pacific, America and Europe, taking in everything from simple jobs to the complex wafer testers. " Where the analysis revealed poor use of a Gerber construct, we made that part of the specification clearer," says Ucamco managing director Karel Tavernier.

The company then hired three professionals from outside the printed circuit board industry to review the specification and flag where it was unclear. "The first revision was carried out by an independent consultancy with expertise in geometric software. The resulting document was then reviewed by a newly hired Ucamco programmer, and then it was the turn of another external consultancy with deep knowledge of PDF, which boasts a truly outstanding specification," Tavernier says.

The company used the feedback to restructure the document and improve the drawings and text. Outdated, superfluous and rarely-used features were removed from the main specification and relegated to a new "legacy" section.

"The resulting specification should be easier to use than ever before, enabling designers and CAD software developers to use the Gerber Format to describe their PCB images fast, in clear, unequivocal terms. In short, this revision helps the CAD community to guarantee top quality data," Tavernier says.

"We urge the design community to review their implementations and setups in light of the new revision. Outdated practices such as the use of the obsolete Standard Gerber Format or pad painting must be avoided. They can jeopardize the quality and timely delivery of the final product. It is in the designers' own interests to take the guesswork out of the equation by ensuring that their manufacturing partners receive clear and unequivocal data. After all, if poor or wrong data results in scrap, the responsibility is firmly with whoever created the data, not with the manufacturer who has to decipher it."

• Prev
• Next