Talk:Biphase Mark Code
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] SVG picture
I made the picture with Dia, so I could export it in SVG as well. I did it, but I got a wrong output, as you can see in Image:Bmc.svg: I don't know whether it is a problem of the programme or of wikipedia's engine. Anyway I used the PNG version you see in the article. Alessio Damato 14:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Differential Manchester
If a merge is to happen between these two codes, it might be an idea to merge with Manchester as well. The basic idea of all three schemes is very similar and comparison and contrast may be useful. I like having separate pages for things like this though as a useful reference. A big page isn't that. I vote no on the merge, especially if only BMC and Differential Manchester are to be merged.--Ktims 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to keep them separated; we might create another page where we compare them, but having one page each is clearer. Alessio Damato 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Alessio. I vote no, too, for the same reasons. It also allows for technical detail that might be out of context in a merged topic. Aki Korhonen 18:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page title
Can we really consider this to be a proper noun? I think the page should be named 'Biphase mark code' instead. This would match the other line codes here, as well as Wiki policy.--Ktims 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree Alessio Damato 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources?
Bot wants sources. All I have is Stallings, which doesn't mention BMC, only Manchester and DManchester. Anyone got some reputable material we can reference?
