On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Curt, WE7U <[email protected]> wrote:
> Remember that there's the AEA format, the TAPR-2 format, and others > that are usually similar to TAPR-2 but perhaps with fewer commands > or just slightly different. Isn't the APRS-IS format pretty much the TAPR format, with the addition of path elements that may push the number over the AX.25 limit, and case incompatible? I'd thought to specify that the IS parser code is sufficient for the cmd-mode TNC parser. > I'm not suggesting that the students be subjected to this level of > complexity, but remember it's there and that somebody has to take > care of it sooner or later. right. Our constraints are such we can't do everything, so I'm trying to structure it for minimum pain in adding support for other interface types. My main goal for this student project is to get a core of sufficient functionality and quality to get the developers to take over and run with it. :) I'm already kicking around modules for future courses (messaging, mapping, etc). > I'd actually consider KISS-only interfaces for the first round, > adding command-mode stuff later. I'd considered that, because it's the most clearly defined and it's what I prefer to use. :| The binary format is a bit scary for noobs, though. -Jason kg4wsv _______________________________________________ Xastir-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev
