Le 13/11/2006, "Pilot, Olivier" <address@hidden> a écrit:
Hello,
Actually, I don't really see the problem with the first point. I mean, if you're talking
about a missing feature, it's quite ok to say that the application you're assessing is
"bad" from this point of view. It doesn't shock me. However I agree with the
second point.
I'm agree.
I also have one request. I think it could be worth including the concept of "mandatory"
features when scoring. It could be interesting to have the choice in putting either a weighting on
a specific feature, either a "mandatory flag". We currently have no mean to represent
this using the QSOS format.
IMO, this is related to the scoring, not the way data are stored.
About the transition and as François said, tools are important and I
don't want to break the current sheets today. But what about a QSOS-dev
module to try new things and do a smooth transition after.
Regards,
Gonéri
_______________________________________________
qsos-general mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qsos-general