adifdev at Yahoo! Groups

Re: related updates

aa6yq — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:34:11 GMT

After thinking more about Jon KE3Z's comments below and the other considerations mentioned in I would like

Re: My perspective on the UTF-8 proposal

Dave AA6YQ — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:59:05 GMT

Re "But there seems to be a general desire to remove any prospect of binary data from ADIF, and this proposal would conform to that desire." As stated in my

Re: related updates

Jon Bloom, KE3Z — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:33:36 GMT

Recall that until the APP_xxx mechanism was added, applications could add any field they wanted without restriction. That meant not only the field name, but

Re: related updates

Dave AA6YQ — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:03:16 GMT

ADIF 1.0 says "ADIF is infinitely extensible--it will never be outgrown. It can handle binary as well as text data. New data elements may be added to this

Re: My perspective on the UTF-8 proposal

Jon Bloom, KE3Z — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:46:01 GMT

I agree with Dave. I had hoped to present an alternative proposal before now, but it has been difficult to find the time. What I had in mind is something along

Re: related updates

jon_ke3z — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:57:14 GMT

I voted "no" for two reasons. First, I don't think the question accurately characterizes the specification. ADIF, going right back to its beginnings, has

my perspective on the STATE/CNTY replacement proposal

aa6yq — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:19:44 GMT

As described in this proposal violates upward compatibility, and if adopted would likely generate great

My perspective on the UTF-8 proposal

aa6yq — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:25:54 GMT

The UTF-8 proposal described in violates a fundamental precept of ADIF that we have maintained since 1.0:

New poll for adifdev

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:11:28 GMT

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the adifdev group: Should the following proposal be included in ADIF 2.2.4? correct broken hyperlinks

New poll for adifdev

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:09:58 GMT

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the adifdev group: Should the following proposal be included in ADIF 2.2.4? Correct broken hyperlink in

New poll for adifdev

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:09:11 GMT

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the adifdev group: Should the following proposal be included in ADIF 2.2.4? Proposal to change the

New poll for adifdev

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:06:57 GMT

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the adifdev group: Should the following proposal be included in ADIF 2.2.4? proposed corrections to

New poll for adifdev

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:05:55 GMT

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the adifdev group: Should the following proposal be included in ADIF 2.2.4? correct weaknesses in the

New poll for adifdev

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:05:01 GMT

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the adifdev group: Should the following proposal be included in ADIF 2.2.4? add Croatian and Irish

New poll for adifdev

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:03:50 GMT

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the adifdev group: Should the following proposal be included in ADIF 2.2.4? Eliminate erroneous