Difference between revisions of "Talk:FRQPAR"
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
by the way: if the use of UHF is likely are 7 digits enough or should we add one more? (that was not a joke) | by the way: if the use of UHF is likely are 7 digits enough or should we add one more? (that was not a joke) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 16:48, 1 December 2008 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Spoke to Larry. He agrees that COMCHA is sufficient for VHF and we do not need to describe it here. We only have to deal with HF and so 6 digits is sufficient.. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Jens|jens]] 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) <br>The theoretic repetition of that attribute is superfluous due to the use of sequential "True". I think the current solution offers the flexibility we expected of a complex attribute. | ||
Revision as of 16:50, 11 April 2010
DavidAcland 16:56, 2 September 2008 (CEST)
Is 6 digits enough?
Could we have to cover VHF like 156.025 mHz? In kHz to 1 decimal place this would be 1560250, and so using 7 digits.
jens 15:25, 19 September 2008 (CEST)
Although I am not convinced that we need VHF frequency pairs (they are COMCHA and I am not familiar enough how it works with Simplex or Duplex VHF channels; perhaps you should discuss this problem with Larry) I can life with the 7th digit. It offers more flexibility and in case we will never use it the design looks very very professional. ...and the data provider will love it too.
by the way: if the use of UHF is likely are 7 digits enough or should we add one more? (that was not a joke)
DavidAcland 16:48, 1 December 2008 (CET)
Spoke to Larry. He agrees that COMCHA is sufficient for VHF and we do not need to describe it here. We only have to deal with HF and so 6 digits is sufficient..
jens 16:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The theoretic repetition of that attribute is superfluous due to the use of sequential "True". I think the current solution offers the flexibility we expected of a complex attribute.