⇐ ⇒

[CF-metadata] Standard names for anomaly-type parameters

From: Philip Bentley <philip.bentley>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:11:06 +0100

Hi Jon

On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 15:39 +0100, Jon Blower wrote:

> Also, what if someone wants to express a new anomaly that isn't in the
> standard name table? If the anomaly is expressed in the standard name
> then they have to go through a procedure to standardize the name
> before they can use it "legally". I bet a lot of people won't bother
> to do this. If there were a more generic way of expressing anomalies
> then they could use this immediately.
>

Our thoughts entirely. The temptation to skip round the standard names
issue and simply use long_names is, er, sorely tempting ;-)

Phil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20080403/08a0f3b4/attachment-0002.html>
Received on Thu Apr 03 2008 - 09:11:06 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Sep 13 2022 - 23:02:40 BST

⇐ ⇒