I'm a little perplexed as to why the XML effort "favors HF" - rather than
starting down another road, perhaps you should show them the error of their
ways.
The problem, as I see it, is that you don't want the VHF guys going one way and
the HF guys another - that helps neither, and can actually obstruct progress.
73, Pete N4ZR
At 07:48 PM 7/17/2006, Radiosporting Fan wrote:
>--- Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
>
>> Ev, I guess one thing puzzles me - why do you
>> persist in promotingyour proprietary scoreboard
>> system, knowing that it will not interoperate with
>> the system being developed by the working group.
>
>Hi Pete,
>There is room for both approaches, don't you think? I
>certainly do.
>
>The XML initiative favors HF operations for many
>reasons.
>
>The RFSport initiative favors VHFers (notice that only
>contests with Grid-4's in the exchange are supported
>by the system?).
>
>In a nutshell...I see RFSport.com's system as a nice
>"first generation" to use today (and get used to
>realtime scoreboards), while the XML project's team
>works on the second generation.
>
>We're really on the same side, after all. It's the
>future for all of us.
>
>Regards,
>Ev, W2EV
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|