In industrial cutting, the term ISO file has been used for decades in a very generic way.
Most of the time, it simply refers to a readable text file containing coordinates, tool commands, and motion instructions.
From a technical standpoint, however, the reality is more nuanced.
The best-known ISO standard in numerical control is ISO 6983, commonly associated with CNC G-code.
In textile cutting and cutter systems, many files referred to as “ISO” are not ISO 6983 at all, but originate from historical formats developed by specific manufacturers.
One of the most widespread is the Gerber Cutter Data Format, historically identified by the use of incremental coordinates (G91).
Despite this, it is often casually called “ISO” purely out of industry habit.
Gerber Garment Technology is a registered trademark.
The reference here is purely technical and descriptive.
Why Everything Is Called “ISO” — Even When It Isn’t
During the 1980s and 1990s, the term ISO gradually became a shorthand for:
-
text-based files
-
X/Y coordinate data
-
tool commands
-
perceived interoperability between systems
In practice:
-
the syntax may look similar,
-
but the semantics of the commands differ.
For example:
-
a notch command once triggered a physical mechanical action;
-
today, it is often interpreted as a logical event or a geometric feature handled by the machine software.
The file remains formally valid, but its operational meaning depends entirely on the modern controller.
Stable Syntax, Evolving Interpretation
One interesting characteristic of these formats is that:
-
the syntax has remained surprisingly stable over time;
-
the interpretation has evolved significantly.
This applies to:
-
overcut handling
-
speed reductions
-
knife intelligence
-
notch management
Many historical commands no longer activate a direct physical function.
Instead, they are translated into software logic, machine parameters, or motion profiles.
Why This Still Matters
Understanding what is really inside a so-called “ISO” file helps to:
-
avoid technical misunderstandings;
-
distinguish formal compatibility from real operational compatibility;
-
correctly interpret legacy files on modern cutting machines.
In a field where “everything seems to work” but few can clearly explain why, this level of clarity still has real value.
A Final Note
This space is not meant to define a new standard, nor to rewrite existing ones.
Its purpose is to restore technical context, bring order, and separate language from implementation.
Anyone who works with these files daily knows that the real difference is not the format itself, but how it is interpreted.
| Command | Description |
|---|---|
| A | Knife Up (equivalent to M15) |
| B | Knife Down (equivalent to M14) |
| X | Precedes X coordinate data |
| Y | Precedes Y coordinate data |
| * | End Of Block (EOB) |
| D1 | Pen Down |
| D2 | Pen Up |
| M14 | Knife Down (equivalent to B) |
| M15 | Knife Up (equivalent to A) |
| M18 | Inhibit next overcut |
| M19 | Ignore overcut and advance |
| M40 | Enable automatic sharpening |
| M41 | Disable automatic sharpening |
| M42 | Sharpen |
| M43 | Drill cycle (equivalent to R) |
| M44 | Auxiliary drill cycle |
| M71 | Select notcher tool |
| N | Figure number |
Appendix B — Example of a Cutting File
The following is an extract from a cutting file that can be viewed with any standard text editor:
