[aprssig] spaces in object names

[Steve Dimse]

On Aug 12, 2009, at 9:12 PM, Pete Loveall AE5PL Lists wrote:

> True for display but... the spec does not limit the "printable ASCII  
> characters" which means a name of !@#$%^&*( (9 characters) is a  
> legal Object name according to the spec.  I doubt this was the  
> "intent" of the APRS WG but nonetheless that means ...,,,__- is also  
> a "legal" Object name.

You are wrong, this _was_ the intent of the WG. If people deliberately  
want to create ugly object names we wanted them to be able to do so.  
What we did not want was for people to accidentally be confused. We  
never intended that "K4HG", "K4HG  ", and "K4HG     " be interpreted  
as three different things.

If, as Pete loves to do, you insist on logic, then the only way to do  
meet the original intent is by not using spaces inside the name, and  
ignoring the padding spaces. Otherwise you are treating spaces  
differently at the end and middle, which is illogical. This is my  
first choice, this is what we thought we had written in the spec,  
though clearly we failed.

If we must have a space inside the object name, then we need to  
explicitly state that padding spaces are ignored, that "K4HG" is the  
same as "K4HG     ". We still should ban multiple spaces, because  
"K4HG A" and "K4HG  A" are too easily confused. This is my second  
choice.

If we must allow multiple spaces inside an object name, then we should  
collapse them, so there is only one thing on the screen that looks  
like "K4HG A". I'm not a big fan of this, I think either of the first  
two choices are far superior.

Pete, other other hand, is advocating we follow the spec as if it were  
a document handed down by God. It was written perfectly, so it must be  
followed as it is, and an argument over the meaning of two words will  
settle the issue. Who cares if following the spec blindly harms APRS,  
all hail the Spec. Even if I agreed with his interpretation of  
"printable character" (I still do not) this blind adherence to the  
spec is absolutely unacceptable to me, and is what I am willing to  
endure personal attacks to fight. The issue needs to be decided based  
on what best serves the purpose of APRS.

Steve K4HG