I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you talking about
converting handwritten logs into Cabrillo format directly?
When Cabrillo first came out and after I got over the frustration of
having to get another program to generate Cabrillo logs (my version of CT
at the time didn't do it) I looked over the format and appreciated the
design. But I don't think it was designed for much, if any, "human
interface". It was meant to be used in coordination with computer
logging programs. My program notes dupes and takes them into account when
it tells me what my final score is. I have to add that final score number
to the final Cabrillo file. The Cabrillo log file is simply a log - it
contains all the dupes, etc. but in no way flags or notes them as such.
The computer program at the other end is supposed to do that and
determine if your submitted score is correct.
With CT being freeware now, it is a way to generate Cabrillo logs. CT has
a "postcontest" mode which allows you to enter paper log data into it
after the contest is done. That is what I usually do when I have a paper
log from my QRP-portable contest operation. It's worked for me for years.
CT also allows you to merge several logs and puts them in chronological
order. We used that feature once for a M/S effort in CQWW.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
> I've been spending some time actually learning about Cabrillo's format and
> purpose. I have to tell you...if anyone takes the time to do this that it is
> obvious that a ton of work went into making it well formatted as a machine
> decodable and auditable system. Kudos to the individual or team that put it
> together!
>
> As technically good as it is, there are areas in it's "human interface" that
> could still use some work. By "human interface", I mean, "Humans expect one
> thing, while the system does something else".
>
> One example is the omission of the ability to log 0-point QSO's (dupes),
> especially important to do when so many people paper-log w/o dupe sheets,
> etc.
> Another is the need to have the log in chronological order (a difficult task
> for
> paper loggers with multiple bands, each with their own log).
>
> My question is this... is there any "standing" committee that is working on
> the
> system to allow it to mature further or has it "frozen" for the forseeable
> future?
>
> Kind regards,
> Ev Tupis, W2EV
>
|