> The Cabrillo spec only lists those contests whose organizers have talked to
> the group that devised the Cabrillo spec and got their contest included
> (basically ARRL, CQ, NCJ and a couple of others). Increasingly, other
> contest sponsors, such as RAC, are seeing the merits of the Cabrillo file
> format and using it, even though their contests are not on the official
> list. My suggestion would be for POST to produce a file that looks like a
> valid Cabrillo file for all contests. The only difficulty with this arises
> when the contest has an exchange that is so different from anything in the
> spec that it's not clear what format to use for the QSOs. Unless and until
> the sponsors for such "oddball" contests get their contest included in the
> spec so everyone knows what the file is supposed to look like, POST could
> either use Tree's guess at what the Cabrillo file should look like, or
> refuse to output a Cabrillo file for any such contests (there shouldn't be
> many of these; the most common exchange formats are already covered in the
> supported list).
Actaully, the first thing that should be done is one of the following:
1. Have the RAC talk to the Cabrillo Gods.
2. Have the RAC refrain from using the word Cabrillo, unless they say
something like: Cabrillo WPX format of Cabrillo Stew Perry format.
Invoking Cabrillo without defining which format is wrong.
Once one of these two steps are done, then I can deal with it as a
logging program author. It would not be appropriate for me to come
up with my definition of what it should look like.
Tree
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
|