I’ve searched for posts where I mention ASCOM and offset and come up with some that talk about how I think this should work
and
Not sure those links have worked.
It’s almost essential to have manufacturers and application developers involved because if they are not prepared to or are unable to implement what is specified there’s little point in doing so. Jared and Ken are obviously willing but it would be really good to involve the manufacturers. This is what works. We need to get the specification right and this needs buy in by the people who will be using it.
If you, or others, can contact the manufacturers then that will help a lot. We really could do with some sort of feedback from the people who will be developing drivers that use the specification at the draft stage.
The problem with defining a specification in isolation is that we probably won’t get it right. Once they are out it’s really difficult to change them because people will use it, often without telling us, and a change will break all drivers and applications that use it.
There’s quite a lot of work in extending a specification:
- DeviceInterface needs to be changed.
- So does DriverAccess, both the interface file and potentially the code.
- The Simulator needs to be updated to match
- a test application needs updating.
- The driver templates need to be changed.
- All the documentation needs doing.
- Conform needs updating.
- I usually find that I’ve missed a couple of things.
And all this needs testing.
Now to manage expectations, I’ve no idea how this will go down with the other people involved in ASCOM and at present, because it has all been discussed on a separate forum, they haven’t been involved at all. It must be raised, by the people who want this, on the ASCOM-Talk forum. I will not do this. I see your, or the manufacturers, doing so as an indication of your commitment to this.
I’m sorry if this seems like a big ask but you are asking for a fair amount of unpaid work and it seems reasonable to make sure that what we do will not be wasted.