Peter wrote:
> If it would have been so simple I would have considered that. I am
> not looking for the package dimensions, but for the solder pad
> dimensions and shapes.

Which require knowing the package dimensions to derive.

I don't understand the problem.  Every datasheet has detailed package
dimensions.  Workable footprints can be decided from those easily enough.  =
I
thought your issues was that you wanted to know the mechanical range of the
generic package type instead of a small sampling of particular manufacturer
implementations.  That part makes sense, although in practise a SO14 is
pretty much a SO14, a SOT23 a SOT23, etc.  Once you have the generic
definition, you should be all set and be able to define a footprint that
works for the full mechanical tollerance range.

There is no such thing as "standard" footprints, only standard packages.
Most manufacturer suggested footprints suck anyway.  They usually only take
into account how to hook up to their part, but of course they don't know
about other constraints on your board, how it will be assembled, and debug
issues you may want to build in.  Manufacturer footprints are basically
suggestions for the lazy or incompetent, and I've seen some outright bad
ones.  Personally I never even look at the suggested footprints, since the
manufacturer doesn't know what I want.  Look at the mechanical specs
carefully, noting all the worst case tollerances, and make your own
footprint.  This really isn't a problem.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.