IPC-7351 C has not been ratified, B is the current standard, I have spoken to the IPC about this in strong terms and they should have slapped PCB Libraries wrist, they should not be doing what they are doing... So Altium is correc t PCB libraries is in-correct.
As illustrated in the following emails (addresses removed):
Hi Nancy,
Please explain why the downloadable tool for the IPC-7351 footprints is set to IPC-7351C format when this has not been ratified…
I do think this is rather worrying and a bit of a backdoor way for someone to force their desires on the IPC.
I look forward to your prompt reply.
Regards
Marc England
Mark,
I have asked my VP to talk to PCB Libraries. I have spoken to them in the past and explained this is unacceptable, but obviously I’m not getting my point across. I agree with you that he cannot be allowed to push his view of things and say it’s following an IPC Standard. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.
Nancy
This conversation from Feb this year, there is more but I cannot publish it for various reasons.
The over complication of SMD footprints is a big issue for me, having been promoting sensible footprint practice for years (35), its also a pain when an engineer gets hold of the tool and starts ripping to bits a free basic library of compliant footprints because there are a few microns difference between the actual footprint and what the TOOL tells you. I also had a rather silly time when an Engineer wanted a IPC-73651C library, I told him I could not do one because there is no such thing, because of this tool he said he wanted one, so I told him to get me the specification to work with, if not it would have to be B. So we are having hassle because someone wants to influence matters outside of the IPC for their own gain, not helping the designers like they should be doing.