 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://frank.gwc.org.uk/~ali/dacs/ makes a passing reference to a newer version of dacs that goes digitally into the exchange does anyone have more info on this? Plugwash 21:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dacs - I have suggestion. You want a lot of technical bits and pieces in the "Technical" section (which is fair enough :) ) and I want a simple technical overview. So how about this: I split the old "Technical" section into "Overview" and "Technical Notes".
Some of the stuff you had put in - like SMACs and DLCs - is very good, encyclopaedic information, but also very technical and not appropriate in an overview. I kept the language in the "Overview" as simple as possible. Can I suggest you add your stuff in the "Technical Notes" section further down if you like?
I also reworded some of the stuff about "took analogue lines two at a time" and "took up to 80 analog lines" and "converted the lines back to analogue" because I don't think it's written in the correct style, and it's also not 100% precisely true - for instance the analogue lines were still analogue; they weren't converted at all; the lines were connected and the signals converted.
Could I also remind you that DACS is still very much in use (sadly for my sister's internet access) and so we shouldn't be using the past tense anywhere in this article.