Yaron [LaserOp]

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Yaron [LaserOp]

  1. Ah, and one more quick typo. On table A.13 " Process Status (“INF”) Packet ", the table lists the label STATUS as STATUSL . I don't see it on 3.11 (correctly STATUS), but I do see it on 3.12.
  2. Hi, We added support to REQ=INF reports on our machines a long while ago. And recently due to a talk with a lab I've taken a look at our implementation, and noticed that for some reason we were sending MODEL to the Host. Which seemed a little odd, it doesn't really make sense to me for it to be there, and it doesn't make sens to me anywhere without DEV and maybe VEN records. So I've checked the VCA DCS document and and section states "The INF request type will contain only request type, job, status, and (optionally) CRC and model ID records." . This is the same for v3.13 draft 30 PDF, which is the most recent VCA DCS document I have, section 7.3.5 on page 92 (by TOC) / 95 ("physical"), and for 3.06 (earliest I think I have) section 6.3.6 on page 44 (TOC) / 50 (Physical). Looking for "model ID" I see it mentioned just a few other times in the document, but always for MODEL (i.e. in a section grouped with what are or should be DEV and VEN). Even though in other places MODEL is just referred to as "model" or "machine model" (which is also how it's called in its definition). I'm pretty certain that the intent here was to specify MID (which we sent as well, despite that "only", since it was usable by Hosts we worked with), not MODEL. Which makes even more sense considering MID is explicitly stated to be optional on requests, similar to CRC. So: Is this indeed a typo/mistake in the DCS, and this should be MID? I should stop sending MODEL, and the DCS should be corrected for the next 3.13 version? Or am I understanding this correctly, MODEL should be here? In this case, can you please explain why? Also, how important is that "only"? This specific interaction started after seeing a communication sample to a Host from a fairly serious vendor where the sample didn't include MID, but did include both VEN and MODEL. Beyond probably being superfluous, is this "wrong"?
  3. Hi Robert, Extremely late response on my side as well, I missed your response at the time, sorry about that. 1. At the moment there are only three sections there (3.11, 3.12, 3.13), so the work of reordering (if it's agreed to do so) is just switching around 3.11 and 3.13. While it could be a lot of work in theory, in this case it seems to me to be very little work. That said, it's very little work, so of course I don't mind doing it myself. Except, I will need the original editable document to do so, not the currently published PDF. And I expect that the concern over compatibility between the editors (Word 365 that the PDF was made with, and my OpenOffice/LibreOffice) and wanting to verify correctness of everything, especially on a document with active change tracking, may cause Paul (or whoever would otherwise do this) a lot more work and concern than doing to quick select>cut>paste operations? 2b. If this was written as a recommendation of maximum length, so recommending terseness, I'd actually fully agree. It's acceptable for a Standard to recommend using short short values without enforcing them. It's even fine to require a maximum length with some specific exclusion criteria (value is made up of words and extending to finish the last word? there are multiple values which are very similar so a few more characters are needed to clarify the differentiation? Something else?). But this is presented as a requirement/specification of maximum length, combined with a complete waiving of that maximum length whenever it is wanted without any specific criteria. "There is no maximum length but it's recommended to limit to X characters" can make perfect sense. "There is a maximum length of X characters unless the length is longer" not so much.3 3. And same point, I agree that allowing for overrides is fine, but that requires specifying explicit cases for the overrides. If the override is completely free and unlimited, then the constraint is meaningless, and should be either waived or re-written as a recommendation. "You must/can't do X unless Y" is fine, except where Y is "you want to" instead of something a lot more specific.
  4. The reason to send to a conveyor DO data different from the default would be to have it match what is sent to a specific machine/device that the conveyor would need to consider. (e.g. If any and all devices on a line receive DO=L then also a generic device should receive DO=L and not DO=B) But in that case having a different device type for conveyor won't help in any way, the conveyor itself could be "at any part of the lab process". Knowing it's a conveyor rather than a generic device doesn't help knowing if it's a conveyor feeding a generator, engraver, polisher, etc... So a new device type won't change anything, you'd still need to tie it to a specific location (device it stands before). Which I guess the way to do will be to have different MID set for each conveyor, and configure the host to send different DO depending on MID? In this case, though, since the decision on the host is in practice entirely dependent on MID, then what is the benefit of having a "CVY" device type to check CVY+MID when you can just as well check for DNL+MID? The device type doesn't add or change anything since MID should probably be specific to a single device anyway. Or, to avoid doing the MID tailoring, since in this scenario the Host is already differentiating based on device type, it may be more practical to have the conveyor present itself as the relevant device. Conveyor before the generator/s can say it's GEN, the one before the polisher/s can say it's FSP (?), and so on. That should give the conveyor full knowledge on what the machines it feed should or shouldn't do. If the possibility of modifying the standard is considered, though, I think it would be a better idea not to add another DEV option, but instead of expand the set of DO___ labels. That would directly do the work of letting a generic device get the important data for all machines, as well as allow DO to be properly handled as a single job-status information instead of having the Host modify it per device. There currently exist such variations for some of the machines, like DOENG for engraver (i.e. If it's a two-lens job that shouldn't be engraved you can, and should, send for such cases "DO=B" and "DOENG=0;1" instead of changing to "DO=L" especially for the engraver), DOCOAT for coating, and a few more, but there are (as far as I know) no equivalents for other devices such as polisher or generator (DOGEN does something else). Expanding those seems like a good way to disentangle the general what-in-the-job-should-be-processed of DO (and let it be the same for all supporting devices without having to adjust it per device), with a very straight-forward and accessible way to indicate what individual devices should do.
  5. @SJO - ENGLOC seems to have not been changed from previous versions, it's still type Literal rather than changed to Literal[;] as you suggested. Are you looking at the same document that has been posted here?
  6. A few comments, on draft ID 30. None I see as extremely critical, except for the last (which is therefore very much an objection rather than a comment/suggestion/question). I'm basing this on the Revision History list, assuming anything changed in 3.13 so far is listed there, I did not read through all the document: Regarding the Revision History itself - I think the revision order (newer on top) is the wrong choice here. This ordering makes sense for thing like blogs and web on-page-updates. But in a part of a closed document older to newer would make more sense to me. Literal data - The updated definition (in 3.3 and 5.1.7.8) is a substantial improvement, and much clearer. That said: - 1 - There is some difference between the more general definition in 3.3.2 and the more specific one in 5.1.7.8 . The one significant thing that was done in 5.1.7.8 and I think would be an important addition to 3.3.2 as well, is that all possible values are to be enumerated in the record definition. Maybe change 3.3.2 from "...having permissible values specified in the standard" to something like "...having permissible values enumerated in the standard" ? - 2 - Since the standard is now clearer that all values are enumerated, is there a point in specifying maximum length? Especially when 5.1.7.8 both specifies maximum length of 12 and allows the definition of each usage to go beyond 12? This is effectively no length limit when defining a Limited record field (since it is explicitly allowed to override 12), and there is no point in specifying maximum length as an issue for anyone using a Limited record field (if all values are enumerated then specifying length is meaningless, maximum length is always the length of the longest enumerated value). Maximum length in the definition of Limited should either be waived completely, or be specified in a way that doesn't allow a record definition to override it. (I'd prefer the former, but either option is better, and internally consistent, compared to the current effectively "there is a maximum length and it can be ignored by everyone") Reference Coordinate System for Backside Engraved Lenses - Previous issues with terminology and usage aside, just a quick note that 5.2.3.1 has an internal reference error, I assume to the related Figure 2 below the section, stating "Error! Reference source not found." in the middle of the paragraph. Removed New DEFAULT label - The Revision History lists having added a new Label DEFAULT. Which is not actually added anyhwhere in the document. I see that it was there in an earlier draft, so I assume it was decided to drop the label, and it's just the Revision History which needs to be adjusted to match. ENGMARK coordinate system - Talked about it in the past, the changed definition of the ENGMARK coordinate system origin is highly problematic. From the previous revision I see that the definition changed from trying to define it on black center to trying to define it on block center, this is irrelevant for the practical objections and has the exact same problem. Again, there are plenty of labs who, for quite a lot of years now, rely on the fact that the coordinate source for engraving (using ENGMARK or ENGMASK records) is ER, not SB. (The Reference point for an Engraving operation being the Engraving Reference). Engraving is being decentered/offset from the Block center in plenty of labs by using SBBC__ + BCER__ records. Using the exact same set of job records, a change from 3.12 to 3.13 should absolutely not cause the engraving to move. It even more certainly should not cause the engraving to move to where the lab does not expect, or want, it to be. This definition expansion isn't clarifying things, it's changing things. And in a way that will have clear and significant and unwanted impacts on labs. I absolutely don't see any benefit whatsoever to doing it, just many downsides. Why change the origin of an already widely-in-use label?
  7. In theory you're correct. In practice, is this worth making a change? It doesn't serve any purpose: In current/new DCS version, ENGLOC indicates on what side the feducial (±17mm) marks would be located, for anything that tries to look for them after engraving. And HASENG indicates if there even are such marks. So the only case where ENGLOC needs to be chiral is if it's F for one lens and B for the others. Which I'd think would never be the case. (right?) Otherwise, there is no confusion or ambiguity. In your sample it would be ENGLOC=B , meaning that for this job the marks are supposed to be on the back side, and that only the left lens has those marks (which are on the back side). "which eye has marks?" and "where are the marks located?" can be (and currently are) independent questions. There is an N value for ENGLOC only for historical reasons, I assume, from before its purpose/meaning was changed (in 3.11 I think?), before there was HASENG. Maybe before there was DOENG (I don't have at hand older DCS documents to verify)? And just as a convenience factor to have a "nicer" value where no lenses have marks.
  8. I want to mention again that the options aren't only to go ahead with the increase as-is in 3.13, vs making a newer major version 4.0 . There are some possible modifications to the change that will prevent any breaking behavior, and so make it technically eligible for 3.13. Please check my last comment on the discussion thread, listing some options that occurred to me, including one that came from Paul. I also think a lot of people maybe didn't read the discussion, or notice the details of why I claim it's a breaking change, as for example: So, instead of yet another explanation, an example to illustrate the issue. This will show device->host initialization request, and host->device job data. These are simplified for the purpose, and to make it more readable this handles as if the previous limit was 20. Starting sitatuion, initialization, device to host: If the device and host were using DCS 3.07, and the device changed to 3.12, nothing happens. If the host changed to 3.12, nothing happens. Everything keeps working as is. Nobody cares what is the version on the other side, because it shouldn't matter when not using new fields/labels. But if the device changes to 3.13m, this happens automatically: And now, if the host is not up to 3.13, it's possible for it to either stop with an error because it doesn't have a valid D at all, or to just return ADD, SVAL, TIND, and LIND, completely ignoring the other three labels that the device needs. Most up do date hosts probably support receiving unlimited length anyway, but they don't have to, and not all hosts in all labs are up to date and well maintained. Not being able to process length beyond the official max is entirely 100% fine and in compliance with the DCS. Which is why this is a breaking change. The device was updated, there was no configuration changes, no new labels or new fields are used. But things stop working. From the other side, same thing, assume this is job data: If the host upgrades from 3.07 to 3.12, nothing happens. If the devices upgrades from 3.07 to 3.12, nothing happens. There wasn't any configuration changes, no new labels and fields are used, all is fine. But if the host changes to 3.13: And now, if the device isn't 3.13, it's possible for it to stop with an error, because it doesn't have the radius length it needs. So, again, breaking change, because merely updating the host, without any configuration changes, and without trying to use any new labels or fields, can cause some devices to stop working, for jobs and data where they worked perfectly fine with before. As with the host, it's likely that it won't cause any issue with most devices, who may not have a length limit for receiving. But they're allowed to, so some can have a problem with the limit. And no other changes along the way impacted them, at all, but this will automatically cause them to stop working properly.
  9. Christian, Main part of your comments, re usage of ER and re BE: When working with the same axis system, there is no difference between "where X should be place" and "where X was placed", for the same X. So "this is where the center point of the engraving is", would be identical to "what should the center point for engraving be". And, given how the Reference Points are all connected, it's very usable that way. Specifically in our use case (and I'd image other engravers), If something has to be engraved, and what the machine physically knows (common use case, engraving on the back side during surfacing) is where the block is located, to find where the center of the engraving should be (which, again, same as it would be after it's done), we generally use SBBC + BCER. (And, as a side note, notice that while it's true the usage labels include ERNR and ERDR, indicating ER usable as source/origin, there is and was also BCER, indicating ER usable as target to get to from somewhere else) I also think you're probably wrong when you write that ER is "most often" used for already marked points as reference for something else. It's entirely possible it was like that 20, maybe even 10, years ago. But at this point, and for a very long time now, the overwhelming majority of labs do engrave/mark lenses as a part of the process. And so, again, if that engraving should be centered on ER when it's done, then it should be done around ER. We're using BCER to position engraving for about since ENGMASK was first introduced (3.06, I think? around early 2007?). And it has been used (i.e. with non 0/? values) by various labs (and LDS vendors), as the main way to indicate decentration for engraving. That's pretty common, established, and industry-wide acceptable, use. And one which is usually done on the back side of the lens. For marking on the front side: I absolutely agree that at this point it's rarely done, which is why FB is rarely needed for engraving. But it is done in some places, and it's being done more and more. So, I think the question of "when being asked to engrave on the front side, where should I engrave, if I'm not explicitly told to engrave relative to the frame?" is a very valid question (together with its counterpart of "When we want an engraver to engrave on the front side, how do we tell it where to engrave, if we don't want it relative to the frame?" ) . And I think it's better to get a standard acceptable answer early, instead of just letting engraver vendors all do whatever they personally think is best, and try to sort it out later. I don't quite get the attitude of "no need to decide that before people are starting to use it a lot, lets allow wide usage with no rules and no specification in the standard before trying to figure out the best way to proceed".
  10. Basically yes. There can be a few other valid (in this case "valid" meaning technically usable to get the wanted result and without breaking anything) options, though probably more complex. As you request I'll list here briefly, without the reasons/explanations inside the options themselves. If anyone who reads this does have a specific question, and can't find it on this thread, I'll be happy to answer with at least my understanding of what and why I present the option. Options to increase the record value length (change max length limit from record length of 80 to record-value length of 255), without making breaking changes inside a minor version change: Increase record-value length for everything. Do a major version increase, to 4.0. Devices/hosts that support it should treat accordingly (not changing to 3.13 automatically without manual configuration, while 3.12- systems are still out in the field). Increase only for specific records, which will not change "automatically" (without anyone entering new job data in different ways/formats) anyway if the limit is extended, . XSTATUS, LDPATH, ENGMARK... , as well as all experimental/vendor-specific labels. All other records still limited to 80 record length. Increase only for single-record labels (and all experimental/vendor-specific). All multi-record labels (D, R, A, ZA...) keep the 80 max record length (except for those that already explicitly extend it, nothing changes there) Increase only for single-record labels (...), which have at least one Text field. All other labels keep the 80 max record length (...). Increase only when communicating with something (device/host) that clearly identified itself as supporting 3.13 (e.g. a device that sent OMAV=3.13+ during initialization). Add option during initialization for host to respond with its own supported OMAV. Any records written/sent without this (during initialization, to files, to devices/hosts that didn't report their version) keep the 80 characters record length. Notice that 1, 2, and 5, are guaranteed to not cause any in-minor-version breaking changes, regardless of usage of any other labels (2 will require some manual work "now" to decide which standard labels are included to begin with, 5 should be robust, and works similar to other like changes in the past such as TXTENC, but therefore makes adopting the change more complicated). 3 and 4 seem to me to be enough to prevent any breaking changes (by themselves, merely from increasing the length) in practice, at least I wasn't personally able to think of a use cases where a problem will occur with them. And they should be clear to define, and relatively easy to implement. 3 basically excludes what is likely to cause problems, and 4 tries to excludes anything that probably doesn't have a valid reason for "needing" the extension (with its current purpose). (As an aside, this works "correctly" by being the cause for 4.0 (and delaying the currently planned 4.0 to 5.0). It's not relevant for combining with the current planned 4.0, since that involves a data format change to things like (from my understading) JSON / XML, which already don't have any forced max length limit on most data types, like Text.
  11. The concept is always more important in theory, but the nomenclature (name, quick description) is what people process first, and what they process when they just quickly skim through something, or search for something, or try to just refresh their memory for reference. If it's not possible to understand what something is, or what is the difference between two things, without going full into the details, the names/descriptions are bad. I'm not sure if the final decision was to keep this as a 2-character name (e.g. BE) or a 3-character name (BER), but maybe instead something like "FO" (or "FOB" if 3 letters, "FOBE" if 4), with a description like (trying to keep as close to the existing description as I can while clearly changing the intent) "Find OC from Back Engraving. The observed midpoint between the semi-visible alignment marks seen on an already finished lens, used to find OC on finished lenses. Origin of the back surface reference coordinate system" . Both the name and description can't be easily confused with any of the other points, and the purpose and usage is clear. (Note: Not sure if "finished" is a correct word there, the purpose was to clarify it's not used when making the lens, so it will be obvious as not relevant for devices during production in lab, and similarly obvious as relevant for inspections/checks/diagnostics later. I assume there's a term for it, that can't be maybe confused with a lens during finishing/edging, but at the moment can't recall what it would be. People who actually work with lenses/jobs at that stage would anyway have a much better idea than me about the correct terminology, or if this is or isn't confusing between the two states as-is) Also, I didn't see anyone respond to the topic of whether this point should really be together with the other Reference Points (on Table 2), given that all of the rest share coordinate space and are translatable in the same way (I think?), and this one requires special and unique handling. Maybe it should have its own sub-section?
  12. Both, or either, depending on context. Most of the marks are done on the back side, semi-visible marks, during surfacing, on lenses attached to surface blocks. That's the main usage of our engravers in labs. But there are also cases where we mark on the front, on finished and edged lenses, attached to finishing blocks (again, usually for things like adding logos and such, visibly). The same LMS/VCA-Host should be able to provide instructions (e.g. view ENGMARK labels) for both. Which is fine, ENGMARK supports both engraving on front and back. So ENGMARK labels for back will go to the "regular" system, and these are oriented around ER. ENGMARK labels for front will go through the "logo" system/module, and these are oriented around... what we're trying to decide here. In practice this is usually oriented to the frame anyway, so it won't matter. But it can potentially not be, and there should a standard interpretation on what the reference is on those cases.
  13. Again, I think that (for anyone who doesn't know in advance what it's supposed to mean) this is indeed confusing and potentially ambiguous in context. From the same Table 2, let's show the two items in sequence, I'll copy the first (BR) from your quote above (different from the 3.13 draft I have, I'll assume you're using a newer draft), and the second (ER) from the draft I have, which haven't changed for quite a few versions anyway: You see the issue? Both are "Engraving Reference Point", both are "midpoint between semi-visible alignment marks". The difference being that BE is explicitly stated to be on the "back", which isn't really a difference since practically always the marks will be in the back for engraving, when using ER, so the definition of ER might as well have "Back" in it. And the purpose/usage is very different. "ER" is used to determine where to engrave. "BE" is used from observing the engraving, from a different angle, to get OC. So changing the name of BE, and describing them differently, is important.
  14. I actually read Mark G. comment as essentially agreeing, saying his LMS will keep sending existing labels with 80 character limit, even though that limit is no longer in the standard, in order to ensure that devices will be able to keep working. Just like I was saying devices will similarly need to keep sending relevant labels to 80 to character limit, in order to not cause some Hosts to stop working. Also, again, the alternative isn't necessarily a major version increase. That one is required if the change is kept as-is, simply increasing the length. But it's also possible to limit the scope of the size increase, so that nothing will break. The issue is with existing already used labels, where the increase will cause an impact, and won't be expected by older software. Which are, in practice, the multi-record labels (e.g. D, R, A...). So if the length limit will be kept to 80 on all of those multi-record labels (that don't already have explicit length in their definition), and increased only for single-record labels (which beyond being the majority, are also probably where the increase was wanted, and what the purpose of the increase is for), that solves the problem. Otherwise, again, as I think Mark practically agreed, the change won't cause a problem because everyone will ignore the change, in a way differing from what the DCS states ("only increase on labels where required" vs "across the board").
  15. To be clear, you're still talking about marking on finished lenses, on the front side, from data provided by ENGMARK? If it's marking on the front side, doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion how you physically hold the lenses (finishing block or something else). Same job data records. If it's marking on the back side, then I'd think the base/center position should be the same ER regardless of whether the lens is finished or not. The relation between OC and ER haven't changed, so the same logic should apply. No? The question here is "what should be the base position when marking on the front side, from ENGMARK record "ENGMARK=?;?;?;?;?;F; ?" . If marking on the back side I think it's always ER, but I don't see a clear definition on front. From the quote from you email above, I still understand for you it's always so far OC, and for us so far it was FB (which I see how may not available/relevant to you if you don't have it when you do this). And there should be something agreed upon by everyone, so different labs would work regardless of what devices they have (the purpose of the DCS)
  16. OK, Paul, since you keep insisting, I listened (well, mostly did quick skips throughout, to locate the relevant section/s) to the recording of the VEW meeting. The topic of the record value length was discussed roughly from 14 to 29 minutes. Of these over 10 minutes, there were about 0 seconds (that I could find) dedicated to discussing whether this is a breaking change, and should it cause an increase of major version. There was, at the end of the session (3 hours 48 minutes), a discussion on 4.0, but it did not have any in discussion on whether the record length should be itself justify a major version, as the definition of OMAV demands. So since you keep responding to my points with, essentially, "this was discussed, listen to the discussion before you raise this again" , please let me know when it was discussed, since I absolutely can't find it in the recording. Also, at about 23 minutes, where most of the actual decisions were already made, mostly leaving the rest for details and bookkeeping, someone says something like "We'll put that for review, send it out, if labs have some reasonable objections" . That... gives the impression that it should be fine to post further comments and objections, for the purpose of receiving actual feedback from the involved members, rather than, essentially, "it's basically decided, so will be voted on as-is if nobody will decide to respond". New point: At around 21 minutes (though generally all over the section) there was a focus on a sub-decision to also limit the length of names of experimental/vendor-specific label names. Which, you know, technically is a valid decision, but the only reasons I could figure out was that it visually felt to some people to be too long, coupled with some snickers at the existing "Excessive label length should be avoided". Is that really a good reason to reduce the length of something, that may already be currently longer in practice in the field, and so possibly turning completely valid and compliant experimental/vendor-specific records under 3.12 to invalid records under 3.13? Sure, this might have been misused by some vendors, but the standard does say "should" and not "must", and "excessive" is open to personal interpretations. If someone created entirely valid "_IT_IS_VERY_IMPORTANT_TO_GET_THE_FULL_NAME_TO_AVOID_CONFUSION=1;2" records, just because it's "ugly" shouldn't be a reason to retroactively invalidate those. This is, again, potentially a breaking change for labs that use such labels. Would really appreciate the timestamp where this was discussed, or response from other committee members who were in the discussion and can comment on why they want to go ahead with a breaking change (or two), instead of adding some further limits to make it non-breaking (e.g. keep old max lengths for any previously introduced records, unless device and host explicitly identified as supporting 3.13, plus way for host to identify supported version).
  17. Haim, Thank you for the response. What I posted here was a continuation of an email discussion following the 3.13 committee draft emailed by Paul on Sep 11. So I have not read any further later documentation, or modifications, since. If the change you mention was discussed on the VEW meeting, or correspondence in another circle, then it's great you bring it up here, and that's one of the points we decided to transfer this to the forum. If the new point was changed (again, from that 3.13 committee draft) from BE to BER, then having it be a 3-letter position, while all the others are 2, does help with separating it from the rest, given the different handling. I think this should also be further separated in the DCS document by listing it separately from the other Reference Points, given that they generally share the same coordinate system, and this one doesn't. And, again, I think the name is confusing and misleading, even supported by reading your email. The thing is, there is the (by now long standing) Reference Point called ER, named "Engraving Reference". Which is where engraving/marking should be made from (base coordinate for engraving data). Where engraving done on the back side of the lens should be made from. So a new Reference Position, BE or BER (worse for this purpose), named "Back Engraving Reference", is a confusing name. It's basically the name of that other older point, even though this one isn't the reference position for engraving. It is, as you write, just a way used to find OC from where the center of a previously-made back-side engraving seems to be, looked at from a different direction. So it shouldn't be called "Back Engraving Reference", when it's functionally so different from the back-oriented "Engraving Reference". I think it's extremely likely for people who read the DCS, without reading the related discussions, could be confused.
  18. On one of the email from you, in the discussion before raising this on the forum, you sent: Which I took to mean that when your engravers or inkers need to mark, on finished lenses (so on a finishing block, so marking done on the front side of the lens), then the base position you use to detemine where anything is marked (e.g. with ENGMARK records), is 'OC' . So for example if you have "ENGMARK=TXT;O;;R;F;F;17.00;1.00;;;1.00;" , then under the current interpretation (as I understand from the quote above), your (for whatever "your" it is you covered in your email) systems will expect the "O" character to be marked on the front side of the lens, 17mm nasally from OC and 1mm above OC. In contrast to, as I wrote, what is so far the expectation from the labs we have front-side marking on finished lenses for (usually for logos, safety marks, and such), which would be to engrave this 17mm nasally from FB and 1mm above FB. ( and of course in contrast to if this was "ENGMARK=TXT;O;;R;F;B;..." , where for engraving on the back side this would be, I think in any case, 17mm nasally from ER and 1mm above ER ) So the open question here is what should be the base/reference for engraving (regardless of whether it's permanent or not, as I think is currently the agreement for back-side marking as well) when it should be done on the front side. For our (LaserOp) needs that is something that should be decided, since the DCS should be explicit on it, to avoid confusion (i.e. if already we have two vendors doing it differently, better to standardize now, while front-side marking is still in early days). But it's not urgent (I wouldn't delay the next version if there's no decision, though I'd strongly prefer there would be) because mostly (in practice, at least for our cases) the engraving in those cases is done relative to frame (e.g. all is type ENGMARK=MASK, where the in-layout objects are set to move relative to frame). So it's an important distinction in theory, but not yet in practice, for us, for just now.
  19. By that definition, nothing is ever a breaking change. Non-breaking changes mean that if you support the new version, but the other side doesn't, everything still works. You won't "get" the new stuff, but if it worked before the update, it will work after the update. Adding new labels. Adding fields to existing labels. Adding new optional modes/types to enumerated sets (literals/integers with a defined set of values and meanings). When those changes happen, everything still works. If the other side is not compatible (older) then it won't be able to process/use/parse the new data. But it will still be able to process and handle whatever it knew to handle before. You can put a new Host supporting new a new version in place, and all the existing machines will still work. You can put a new machine using a newer version in place, and it will still work with the existing Host and data. This change... makes things that previously worked, stop working, when one side is updated. It doesn't mean the older side won't get to use the new info, or won't know how to process the new data types. It makes the older side not being able to get old data from old labels that it previously knew how to handle. D worked and was valid, now D may not work and be invalid. R worked and was valid, now it's invalid. You turn valid records, into invalid records, merely by upgrading. That's a breaking change. If I update my machine, and it stops working ("breaks"), that's... about the definition of a breaking change. How do you define "breaking change", if a change that caused something that worked before to immediately stops working, without upgrading the other side, isn't "breaking"? Does not being able to receive the exact same data, for the exact same labels, not "affect the ability of hosts and devices to communicate", as per OMAV? The problem will indeed exist even when calling this 4, yes, of course. Since, again, it is a breaking change. But switching to 4 is an indication that things can break. That's the explicit purpose and usage for a major change. If I update a machine that used 3.xx to 4, it won't (it shouldn't) start to talk 4 with other machines/hosts by default. If I update a machine that used 3.12 to 3.13, it will (and it should) talk 3.13 with other machines/hosts by default. Things are supposed to break when switching to 4, that's what it's for. They're not supposed to break between 3.12 and 3.13.
  20. So, again, what am I supposed to do with those D labels? It's valid for me now to send them longer, and it's now and invalid record for the LMS so it should ignore them. (Because, again, the idea was to ignore invalid new labels, not to invalidate active and working ones). This is straight to the Q&A forum once the new version is out. I'm correctly sending valid data which the LMS then correctly and validly ignores, my machine no longer works after a correctly performed upgrade that fits all the requirements of the standard, what should I do?
  21. Yes, and the last time we were actually involved in a live/phone conference about the engraving reference system, and the last time Pinney (from my company) was in a meeting mentioning it, we ended up being told it's not actually relevant for us and we shouldn't do anything with it as an engraver, and were essentially discouraged from keeping up. So, something in the results of the discussion did turn out to appear relevant and I had some comments (to be fair mostly because it was called "Back Engraving Reference", which again opened the "are you sure it means what you say it means?" discussion, the following details are just more thoughts that came out later, since I was looking at it anyway). Was I supposed to not add anything to the discussion, even if I saw something that appeared problematic, because I wasn't at the meeting? Isn't the purpose of these forums, and of you emailing notice about a new DCS draft, to open the discussions not only to the people who were on the meetings? Now, if someone from the 50 people presents on those meetings, would be kind enough to just rough timestamps of when different topics start, and post those short lists when the audio recording are out, that would be great. I'd be very appreciative, I'm sure other people will be greatly appreciative, and I'm sure it will increase the amount of people who listed to (at least part of) the meetings. As-is, again, a few minutes here and there on the forums, I can justify. Hours of listening to the meetings, most of which not directly relative to my job, would (very rightfully) get me some unkind comments from my boss.
  22. Two main things: This is what the standard specified should happen. Making changes to the standard, which ignore explicit specifications in the standard, is... not how Standards work. It can't contradict itself. It can't specify how something is done, then do it in an incompatible way, without and still be a Standard. For the exact same reason that, I expect, the standard was set to say it should be a major version. At the moment I assume about 100% of anything using the DCS uses version 3. And it's possible to add changes to that version 3, and still work with other software using version 3, because all of the changes are additive. If there's a new label that the other device doesn't know, it can just ignore it, and ignoring it is a fine response, because it won't know what to do with it anyway. All the changes are sort of backward compatible. Updating one device/host in a lab to a new version can be ignored if there isn't a new feature needed on the other machines. Version 4, as a major change, means that this is all gone, as I assume was on the change from 2 to 3. If you're not absolutely sure the other machine is 4, you're not supposed to just send the same and know it will all work, sans not getting new stuff. You have to know what major version you're communicating with, for sure, unless there is also an added back-compatible way to check. It's like knowing there's one machine using the DCS and one machine using something else, which has to be configured appropriately. So with a change to 4, it requires manual indication of which protocol to use on what, at least until complete saturation of 4, or unless there's a good detection built-in on 4. There won't be an "The customer just updated our software on the machine, and suddenly it stops working", because the update won't switch automatically to 4. But with 3.13, the standard is very clear, you can't just switch to 3.13, and everything that worked before will still work. It's safe. There is no reason to add "3.13" manual configuration, or anything of the sort. By definition. If the idea is to change how major/minor versions in the standard are handled, I suppose that's fine. I think it's a bad idea, but it's fine, and the committee can certainly decide to do that. But it didn't happen here, the definition of how major/minor versions are handled remained the same. And this is a minor version. So I can just change my line length to 255, and the Host can just fail to parse it, and everyone is working correctly, which is exactly what the definition of the major version is supposed to avoid.
  23. That's almost 8 hours, mostly not relevant for any one individual topic (like this), with no index or rough timestamps of what was discussed when. I really can justify a few question on a forum, to people who were involved, compared to burning an entire workday... So, back to my question, if I now change my software to support 3.13, can I use the new limit of 255 characters for D labels I send on REQ=INF packets? Was the conclusion in the meeting indicating that I should, and if my system stops working in the lab because the LMS can't initialize, that's all fine? Or was it indicating that I shouldn't, but that there also shouldn't be any notice in DCS document letting me know that? Yes, I'm sort of being snarky here, but this is also an entirely honest question, which I do need an answer for, because right now I do limit record length to 80 when sending D records on initialization.
  24. Did the committee discuss how much of a breaking change this is, and decided it doesn't merit a major version change? Or is it just that nobody noticed it's breaking, so the topic never came up? It certainly didn't occur to me in the previous talks, until just now (when I thought I could change the length for D records, and then it hit me that I actually shouldn't since it's breaking). It certainly seems like small and so not a breaking change, before noticing how it would be, I'm guilty of that myself. The case is very simple. It's a breaking change (again, see my example of sending valid and fully compliant INF=REQ packet, that a valid and fully compliant host will suddenly not be able to process correctly). And the standard is explicit about breaking changes. If this is inserted without officially considering it a breaking change, then, as I wrote, at the very least there should be a notice that the record length is still 80 for all cases where the supported version of the receiver is not known. If it's not there, that is surely not because the committee decided it shouldn't be, but because it was missed as an oversight. In any case I certainly agree it's not all on you. Anyone else reading this has an opinion?
  25. Binary data was already not limited, so not a part of this discussion, as it's not talking about it. Paul, the issue with compatibility is very simple: Say I'm now updating my software, on my company's machine, to support 3.13. I now need to send REQ=INI to a VCA Host. I have more than 80 characters of labels to send in the D records (already the case in some labs). What do I do in the REQ=INI packet? If I send more than 80 characters, and the Host doesn't support 3.13, it's entirely fine for it to consider what I sent it to be an error. It could fail with an error, or ignore some of the labels sent, and possible cut one in the middle and assume I mean a different label. And this is for an existing label, not a new one for 3.13 that it would be otherwise justified to ignore. Clearly sending more than 80 is, in this case, a breaking change. Both sides are technically in 100% compliance to the standard, doing exactly what they're supposed to and allowed to do, and things (that were already working) break after my (bug free and correctly working) software update. Do I not send over 80, even though I'm technically allowed to? If so, again, the DCS has to be explicitly clear that the 80 character limit has to be maintained whenever talking to machine/host that isn't known to be supporting of 3.13. That requires a change to the document which is bigger than just the number. And, again, this is essentially saying in the standard that the change is breaking and so backward compatibility has to be maintained, which means that, again, it contradicts the requirement for minor version. This one is doable and workable, and possibly much simpler to pass than making this a major version change, but it's "ugly". I completely agree that the max length limit needs to extend/go. But you're maintaining a standard, and this is how this standard states that it handles breaking changes, and this is a breaking change, so it has to be addressed.