I don’t mind it being a submode. What is puzzling is why FT4 is a submode and FT8 is not. Seems rather odd since both of them are MFSK.
73 Ria, N2RJ On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:51 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft.com> wrote: > Thanks for the comment. Now I will try to guess who is the author of this > brilliant idea. > > + The names of the 14 representatives who approved ADIF 3.1.0 are listed > below. Most ideas in ADIF evolve as they are batted around for awhile. No > one keeps track of who first proposed a particular concept; to do so would > be counterproductive. > > Essentially, this is probably good for the many experimental modulation > types that periodically appear and immediately die as unclaimed. > But for the type of FT4, which is preparing to become a major in amateur > radio communications, this is absolutely unacceptable. It will be correct > to re-vote back while there is still time. This will be a wise decision. > > + Anyone can post comments to the ADIF development group. However, > unsubstantiated assertions like those immediately above, will likely be > ignored. > > + The fact that FT4 is represented in ADIF QSO records with <MODE:4>MFSK > <SUBMODE:3>FT4 instead of <MODE:3>FT4 will in no way impede the adoption or > use of FT4. > > + If an ADIF-supporting application is so poorly constructed that with 6 > years notice, it can't readily be extended to support the use of SUBMODE, > then that application belongs in the dustbin of history. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
