CCR is a great example of a standard like the one I mention above, good but not yet solid. Still I agree that is definitely the closest to being solid.

Real Soon Now (tm) MirrorMed will be able to import and export to CCR too. But then, if we are going to all this trouble, and you are going to all this trouble why don't you simply use MirrorMed. From a practical standpoint, your company would be doing exactly the same thing it is doing now, but with 10 programmers instead of one...

Its better practically... its better morally... something to think about.

Trotter

• Re: Browser Based EMR's Threaten Software Freedom by Redzzand on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @ 09:05 AM

  Browser based software requires much less bandwidth than LAN based applications. Additionally, browser-based software can be accessed remotely through the internet from any hanheld device such as PDAs, Blackberrys, Internet-enabled cellphones, laptops, tablet pc's, etc. All of this can be accomplished securely through the use of TLS/SSL 128-bit encryption.

  [ Reply to this ]

• Re: Browser Based EMR's Threaten Software Freedom by Ignacio H. Valdes, MD, MS on Wednesday June 20, 2007 @ 10:20 AM

  False. LAN based applications take no more and no less bandwidth than anything else. Moving a bit is moving a bit whether it is a browser or a RPC call. You can argue that Browsers have been optimized for certain things, but so can client-server applications. EMR applications such as VistA are client-server based and very optimized for low-bandwidth service. For now at least VistA's CPRS client can do things that browser-based applications cannot. -- IV

  [ Reply to this ]