Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Trlog\]\s+Why\s+Not\s+Cabrillo\s+Format\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Trlog\]\s+Why\s+Not\s+Cabrillo\s+Format\?\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [Trlog] Why Not Cabrillo Format? (score: 1): Author: kg5u at hal-pc.org (Dale L Martin); Date: Fri Feb 28 15:59:20 2003; Just curious....but why don't we just use Cabrillo Format for logging during the contests which require it? Why go through the conversion process and end up with two versions of the same log (.dat an; /archives//html/TRLog/2003-02/msg00146.html (6,367 bytes)
2. [Trlog] Why Not Cabrillo Format? (score: 1): Author: tree at kkn.net (Tree); Date: Fri Feb 28 16:14:49 2003; A good question. First - there is the obvious timing issue... .DAT was first and .CBR came later. Rewriting TR to deal with .CBR instead of .DAT would be a lot of work. And then, there are those cont; /archives//html/TRLog/2003-02/msg00147.html (7,583 bytes)
3. [Trlog] Why Not Cabrillo Format? (score: 1): Author: rrossi at btv.ibm.com (Ron D. Rossi); Date: Fri Feb 28 16:26:00 2003; A Cabrillo file is not just some header information and then log lines with the identifier "QSO:" in front of it. It has a specific content PER CONTEST. This content is documented on Trey's page. htt; /archives//html/TRLog/2003-02/msg00148.html (7,385 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]