Sammy Smallman

Referencing #12, further thought on the subject of uniqueness has led me down the path that a schema should either be "scoped" as a manufacturer wide parameter (all devices supporting...

> This is still an outstanding question: Why do the messages need to contain the version tuple as opposed to the system that retrieves the messages storing the messages tagged...

> The schema should be applicable to all messages, ESTA or not. I'm not necessarily taking about transmission. The schema is for _definition_, not transmission. I am of the same...

> if your UI can behave the same/handle them in the same way for standardised ESTA PIDs and manufacturer specific ones, you end up treating manufacturer specific ones the same...

> Here's another reason why I don't think this change should go into the schema (adding the 3-item tuple). The schema should be also applicable to the ESTA-defined messages (i.e....

I don't disagree with your comment but... Is a manufacturer specific parameter definition providing labels like in the example above not implementing it outside the realm of the normal RDM...

> Could I possibly suggest a rather bold step @ssilverman ? Delete the draft PIDs/standards from the master branch (and fix queued message or I think the schema) and merge...

QLab is a good example for an application that uses show control (https://figure53.com/qlab/) - to use for testing it’s completely free and very straight forward to set up. Sent from...

I agree this is an issue with the specification and inconsistent verbiage. But we can't let that roll into code. The name is used to uniquely identify one parameters field...

I get the same. Where do you see the error?