Re: EHP External Hardware Proposal

> From: "Fred Smith" <imserv@...>
>
>> From: hansw <hansw@...>
>>
>> It appears there is not real standard for G-Code, just bits and snippets

everywhere, some committee has folded and appears not

>> to have done a good job.. See previous postings about this...
>
> I guess I missed the previous Postings. Here is the standard:
>
> : ANSI/EIA 274-D-1980 (R1988): Interchangeable
> Variable Block Data Format for Positioning, Contouring, and
> Contouring/Positioning Numerically Controlled Machines.

Actually what I said was:
"As to who is in charge of RS-274, the best answer I can give you is that no
one is. As far as I know the EIA is finished with it, the committee is
disbanded, never to meet again. The National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences wrote a greatly expanded version called RS-274NGC (Next Generation
Controller), but it was never finalized (I can send you the draft copy)."

I'm sorry if I was not clear in what I said originally. my point was that
there wasn't anyone currently _maintaining_ the RS-274 "G Code" standard
(that I know of), and that defacto industry standards* have progressed beyond
the "official" version. One thing I have learned about standards bodies like
ANSI, EIA, and NIST (among others) is that they do not dictate the terms of
standards to force industry into doing things "their way". The purpose of
standards seems to be twofold; First to codify and clarify existing "industry
standards" so that others can create compatible products. Second, in the case
of new technologies where there is no clear "industry standard", standards
are written to promote debate among interested parties, and then revisions
are made until everyone is (reasonably) happy. The main point is that
standards are supposed to be promulgated from the "bottom up", rather than
dictated from the "top down". Who should be in charge of standards? Answer:
End users and product manufacturers!

I think that RS-274 needs to be updated to reflect the current "state of the
art" by surveying all the additions and improvements that various control
manufacturers have adopted, and resolve any conflicts (ie G2846.3 is used by
two companies for different purposes).

* Ref: Fred Smith's post regarding GE/Fanuc's improvements to threading
cycles, etc.

Matt

P.S. It sure would simplify post processors!