Re: Consensus on BSC temperature reporting?

["estratosapiens" <dberenguer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- In xap_automation@xxxxxxx, Gregg Liming <gregg@...> wrote:
>
> After having searched this list for methods for temperature reporting
> w/i BSC, I'm having difficulty determining a consensus.  It seems that
> while there is a consensus on putting the temperature value in the
text
> field, a standard practice for units and scale are missing.  In most
> cases, "degrees" for units seems implied (although, I've
noted at least
> one exception) and then the first letter of the scale is appended.  Is
> this accurate?  Does case matter?  Can spaces exist between the value
> and "scale letter"?
>=20
> I realize that the "beauty" of BSC is informality, but my
preference
> would be to drive to a consensus.  Or, would adopting some other
schema
> for temperature reporting be better altogether (i.e., is this trying
to
> make BSC do too much)?
>=20
> Gregg
>

I agree with you Gregg that every xAP application reporting
temperatures should do it in the same way. Interoperability is, in my
opinion, one of the goals of xAP. Applications expecting temperatures
from the xAP network can't support different representation techniques.

I'm currently developing a xAP embedded device that measures
temperatures and I write the results in this manner: text=3D25.6 =BAC

For me, units should appear beside the value. It makes the parsing
process more complicated but it's the best way of showing the type of
data received.

Daniel







=20