Bill [K5BY],

1. I would have logically thought that the "@" Sign would have
been represented as "A" (.-) and "T" (-) for [AT] (.--) Prosign.

but, But. BUT ! (.--) is already used for "W".

Oh... NEVER MIND !

TBL: So the Prosign "AC" (.--.-.) will be the "@" Sign in CW.


2. I would think that the "DOT" (Period) would simply be the
* CW "Period" (.-.-.-) {6}
* Vice Spelling Out "DOT" in CW as (-.. --- -) {9}


3. Question: How is the [World Wide Web] Anagram "WWW" sent ?
? Simply as "W W W" (.-- .-- .--) the three separate Letters.
? Or simply as "www" (.--.--.--) a compress 'www' Prosign.


ow... ~ RHF
= = = One Wonders... and Begins to Think !
..
..
= = = (WShoots1)
= = = wrote in message ...

Speaking of CW...

I read recently that the ITU is coming
up with a unique code for the @ sign.

I believe it's .--.-.
(didadadidadit, i.e., A and C sent as one).

73,
Bill, K5BY

..

..

Good questions, RHF, but I think you answered them all. G

The thing about the @ sign, there was no option for that special character. And
it does look kind of like an A inside a C.

I do think WWW should have a more convenient form. I suppose when it was sent
in a certain context, a single W would be understood. Maybe a W3... Unless
one's call sign begins with that. G

Bill, K5BY

"WShoots1" wrote in message
...

[snip]


I do think WWW should have a more convenient form. I suppose when it
was sent
in a certain context, a single W would be understood. Maybe a W3...
Unless
one's call sign begins with that. G

Bill, K5BY

How about 3W, then? There won't be any conflict with 3WE, now that
they're WTAM again.

Frank Dresser

(RHF) wrote in message


2. I would think that the "DOT" (Period) would simply be the
* CW "Period" (.-.-.-) {6}
* Vice Spelling Out "DOT" in CW as (-.. --- -) {9}

I would use .-.-.- if it were me doing it... Same as it's written.


3. Question: How is the [World Wide Web] Anagram "WWW" sent ?
? Simply as "W W W" (.-- .-- .--) the three separate Letters.
? Or simply as "www" (.--.--.--) a compress 'www' Prosign.

..-- .-- .-- Shouldn't ever run together normal letters...


MK

MK,

But... [IF] "W W W" (.-- .-- .--) were transformer by the ITU into a
PROSIGN for the "World Wide Web" then it would be "www" (.--.--.--) .

That is the nature of Prosigns ( I Think ? )


Bill [K5BY],

I did not visualize the "a" within a "C" for the [ @ ].

But now that it has been pointed out the Prosign "AC" (.--.-.)

Does make a lot of sense now - So (.--.-.) for [ @ ] it is.

..

~ RHF
..
..
= = = (Mark Keith)
= = = wrote in message . com...
(RHF) wrote in message


2. I would think that the "DOT" (Period) would simply be the
* CW "Period" (.-.-.-) {6}
* Vice Spelling Out "DOT" in CW as (-.. --- -) {9}

I would use .-.-.- if it were me doing it... Same as it's written.


3. Question: How is the [World Wide Web] Anagram "WWW" sent ?
? Simply as "W W W" (.-- .-- .--) the three separate Letters.
? Or simply as "www" (.--.--.--) a compress 'www' Prosign.

.-- .-- .-- Shouldn't ever run together normal letters...


MK
..