[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tlf-devel] TLF and Cabrillo format

From: Piotr Tomczak
Subject: Re: [tlf-devel] TLF and Cabrillo format
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:55:34 +0200

Hello again Ed.

I checked with the rules and cabrillo format at SAC and it seems that I was rigth the format has wrong position for RCVD Call Sign.

It does not matter that it generates the ADIF or that my Converter program handle the format anyway, after I made some modifications in parsing the QSO line.
But the problem is still there and it should be solved/corrected.

In my spare time I will try to modify the writecabrillo.c, but I need to figure out how the buffer is handled. It will take a while
Best regards


On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Piotr Tomczak <address@hidden> wrote:

My fault Ed...
1. I did miss the possibility of ADIF generation from TLF
2. I have tested different Cabrillo to ADIF converters, and this resulted in writing my own converter that handle both the TLF Cabrillo format and the propper Cabrillo format.

Anyway when I have looked at the writecabrillo.c yesterday night I discovered that there is a function for writing the ADIF logs as well.
I have looked as well at the section for writing "his call" in cabrillo but did not recognized any problem. It seems like the his call is placed one space after the "sent repport" field, and did not bother about the absolute position. But I am not sure and I did not experimented with the code yet.
I mainly program in ADA and Java and i have very limited knowladge from C.


On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Ed <address@hidden> wrote:
Piotr Tomczak wrote:
Hi friends...
I have discovered lately that there is some small missmatch in the Cabrillo
file generated with TLF compared to both the standard and the other log
The difference is in the QSO data.
In the received info CALL field. In the Cabrillo specification the second
CALL field starts at the position 56 if indexed from 1, while the TLF place
it in the position 54 if indexed from the begining.

Not a big problem but some Cabrillo to Adif converters complain about this
specification mismatch.

Has any body else noticed this situation ?
Does any body will try to verify it ?
I may try to look at the code myself to see first how it looks like in the

/piotr SM7YEA.

I do not understand why you are using an external ADIF converter, when TLF will also print out an ADIF log for you.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]