RE: HDL Support (was RE: Meeting minutes 050825)

Per,

I do not think that we should define sub-categories in the standard
itself. The standard should have a single scope that defines the
languages that are being supported. A single scope is not in conflict in
my opinion with the liberty that companies can take implementation only
a subset of the languages or features as long as these are clearly
stated.

Shabtay



>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-itc@eda.org [mailto:owner-itc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Per
Bojsen
>Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 11:16 AM
>To: itc@eda.org
>Subject: RE: HDL Support (was RE: Meeting minutes 050825)
>
>Shabtay said:
>
>> I support the idea that an implementation can address a subset of the
>> standard as long the owner of the implementation states that the
>> implementation is partially compliant (with a language or feature
>> subset).
>
>The issue I am raising is whether it makes sense for us to write the
>new standard such that support for any language combination (e.g.,
>C/VHDL, C++/oldVerilog, etc.) is optional.  What I mean is, should an
>implementation be allowed to call itself fully compliant for a specific
>set of language combinations.  This implies full disclosure of what
>those combinations are, of course.
>
>The advantage of the above is that any vendor can assess its market
>and its customers and focus its efforts on the langauge combination
>or combinations that its customers are actually asking for and still
>get the stamp of being a compliant implementation.  However, this
>is probably a moot point currently since we do not have a way to
>prove compliance . . .
>
>Per
>
>--
>Per Bojsen                                Email: <bojsen@zaiqtech.com>
>Zaiq Technologies, Inc.                   WWW:
http://www.zaiqtech.com
>78 Dragon Ct.                             Tel:   781 721 8229
>Woburn, MA 01801                          Fax:   781 932 7488
>
>