Hi, I was just reading through the 2.1.4 version suggestion I found at http://jaime.robles.nu/klog/adif214.html and was wondering the same thing I have...
Tapio Sokura
oh2kku@...
Feb 22, 2004 11:50 pm
885
Another quick one I forgot to include in the previous email on the format of the location field: The version I found at the address mentioned in my previous...
Tapio Sokura
oh2kku@...
Feb 23, 2004 12:16 am
886
For anybody upgrading logging software to ADIF 2, I just wanted to mention that eQSL.cc is implementing support for the new ADIF 2 PROP_MODE field specifically...
If your logger supports IRLP and EchoLink using the new Prop_Mode tag, please log into eQSL.cc and update your logger info record to reflect that fact. (You...
I am interested in making a syntactically well-formed, valid XML definition of ADIF. The goal would be to have an alternate syntax for the same data,...
The following message appeared on this reflector 2/19/2003. To me an approved draft simply loses it's draft status and becomes the final version. So, the note...
It takes about 5 minutes to write an ADIF parser. Even with an off- the-shelf parser, adding XML import/export support to an existing application is far more...
... I asked a couple of questions on this list some weeks ago about clarifications to the draft (MY_CALLSIGN equivalent field, geographic location notation). I...
Tapio Sokura
oh2kku@...
Apr 6, 2004 5:56 am
893
I agree with Gabriel. The poll was closed but it's just been voicing an opinion. I've yet to see the final version of ADIF 2 which I'm willing to implement but...
The poll question was "Do you approve of the ADIF 2.1.4 specification and agree that it is ready for publication?". The result was 23 in favor and 1 opposed,...
Thanks for the answer! I am not suggesting restarting or replacing, but complementing the ADIF 2.0 definition with an XML representation of the same data...
Both of the issues you identified are reasonable, Tapio; there are many comparable issues that require clarification and/or an improved explication. ...
The only reason that ADIF 2.0 hasn't been approved has been then unwillingness of those in charge of bringing the standard to a vote have not done so. I have...
The standard was brought to a vote last August. And you voted. And the vote "passed" by 24 to 1. And nothing happened until LotW and eQSL.cc began requiring...
..it would have been as simple as posting the results of the polling when it finished. I personally expected this to happen after placing my vote, but after...
Gentlemen, The Poll was the vote. It was a roll call of the participating members. Notices were given, time was allotted, reminders were sent via overriding...
Those are all developer-oriented standards and tools, Leigh. What's the benefit for end-users? 73, Dave, AA6YQ ... ADIF ... which ... that ... but ... such ......
Dave, I certainly understand your question from the point of view of trying to alter or displace an existing standard, and for adoption, there would have to be...
... What do you call the below? Chopped liver? The vote was taken and draft approved well over a year ago. Why isn't it posted on a publicly available web...
Viewing ADIF log data via a web interface could easily be implemented. The absence of this capability is due to lack of need or interest, not development...
Dave, Thank you -- a very commendable attitude, and I think this issue has generated enough meta discussion. Next time I post it will be with working...
The following adifdev poll is now closed. Here are the final results: POLL QUESTION: Do you approve of the ADIF 2.1.4 specification and agree that it is ready...
adifdev@yahoogroups.com
Apr 7, 2004 12:11 am
907
Fantastic! I know someone else here already commented along these lines, but where will the ADIF 2.0 spec reside? Is the hosenose site going to add the 2.0...
If we're serious about moving this forward, there are several issues to be addressed: 1. The 2.1.4 draft is incomplete. For example, a list of primary and ...
I totally agree with you Gabriel. I still wonder and still have not found an answer to this, why v2.1.4 wasn't made publically available but hidden somewhere...
... I think so. "OPERATOR" which was carried forward from ADIF 1.0 is defined as "the logging operators callsign". To define a "MY_CALLSIGN" in addition to...
Who maintains the site that holds the official specs for v2 where it's publically available? Sri if my thinking is wrong that www.hosenose.com/adif would be...
Sry bad english... HI... Still for these second ADIFs 2.x, would be beautiful and opportune to define a universal system for the various "smaller" AWARD on the...
Franco Borsa - HB9oab
wlog2000@...
Apr 7, 2004 1:59 pm
913
... I agree that there is no need to define a new field for the callsign of the logging station, there are enough of different callsign fields already and...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
