Hi Ros
I like the new recommended phrasing. If there is no objection, I think
this should go into a future version of the CF doc.
Bryan
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 08:55 +0100, Rosalyn Hatcher wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> Bryan Lawrence wrote:
> > Why make explicit exceptions?
> >
> My understanding was that only data variables should have
> standard_names. I think actually I was
> wrong to list boundary and climatology variables as exceptions anyway,
> so maybe it
> would be better to say
>
> "It is recommended that all data variables use the standard_name
> attribute to describe their
> content."
>
> Regards,
> Ros.
> >
> > On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 11:20 +0100, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Ros
> >>
> >>
> >>> * All variables should use the standard_name attribute to describe their
> >>> content. Exceptions
> >>> are boundary, climatology and grid_mapping variables.
> >>>
> >> I support this. Maybe just "should" is too strong - it sounds mandatory -
> >> and it would be better to say "It is recommended that ...". We could add a
> >> sentence about requesting new standard names if necessary.
> >>
> >> Thanks. Cheers
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CF-metadata mailing list
> >> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> >> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 18 2006 - 05:05:43 BST
