On 27.10.20 15:49, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:48:30 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
On 10/27/20 2:23 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
On 27.10.20 14:06, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
On 10/23/20 10:30 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
No. It is 'Classical CAN'. I'm not very happy with that naming as there
was already a 'CAN2.0B' specification to separate from the first version
which only had 11 Bit identifiers. This could be Ancient CAN now :-D
So Classical CAN is CAN2.0B?
For example there was a press release to harmonize the CAN transceiver nameing
recently:
https://can-cia.org/news/press-releases/view/harmonized-transceiver-naming/2020/7/16/
Yes, there you can find:
"CAN high-speed transceivers might be used in Classical CAN, CAN FD, or
CAN XL networks"
What happened to 'Standard CAN' (<= CAN2.0A) and 'Extended CAN' (CAN2.0B)?
Did those names became fossils now?
I'm currently working in a CiA Working group for CAN XL higher layer
protocols - and all documents that refer to the "CAN with 8 bytes
payload" seem to use "Classical CAN".
Btw. I would prefer your naming much more.
"Classical" is like "New" or "Enhanced" or "Next Generation" - just
relative attributes.
Best,
Oliver
