Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
>
>Obviously the vast majority of entries were Cabrillo. It may be
>interesting to note that three of the "Non-Cabrillo text formats" files
>came from three of our four most active mobiles. (I think logging
>software authors may need to pay some attention to better handling
>mobile operations)
>
>We prefer Cabrillo files. (and say so in our rules) Most of them
>contain enough information in the headers to properly classify the log -
>after all, wasn't the intent of the Cabrillo header to make a summary
>sheet unnecessary? I would be VERY happy if we could reach a time when
>*all* TNQP entries were Cabrillo, it'd sure make my life as a logchecker
>easier. I really can't say I understand why any QSO Party would NOT
>welcome Cabrillo files.
>
>
I should clarify that the PAQSO wants cabrillo files also. I think
that somewhere along the line, there was a popular misconception that we
required log submission via pony express, and that they needed to be
inscribed in cuneiform on clay tablets. ;^)
But we don't get enough from the headers. And after learning a bit
about Cabrillo, I find it limiting, and so many programs treat it
differently. I get cabrillo files where the only information present is
the Op's name, qth and class. I am not sure where the deficiency lies,
and I don't want to become a software evaluator, save for my own use.
- 73 de mike KB3EIA -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|