Dear all,
Perhaps CF would benefit from explicitly defining its use of the terms
"must", "should", etc. as the interpretation is currently ambiguous.
I would recommend CF adopts the definitions as used by the IETF RFC
process:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Richard Hattersley AVD Iris Technical Lead
Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 885702 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
Email: richard.hattersley at metoffice.gov.uk Website:
www.metoffice.gov.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu
> [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: 08 August 2011 09:40
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] [FRANCE] Question about CF Convention
>
> Dear John et al
>
> > The actual CF convention says "should", im not sure why
> >
> **http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/conformance/requirements-and-recommendation
> > s/1.5/
> > says "must".
>
> My reading is that "should" and "must" mean the same and that
> the convention, as it stands, requires CF-netCDF files to
> have the .nc suffix. This statement has been there since the
> dawn of time, but it could be proposed for deletion, or for
> downgrading to a recommendation, at the next version of CF.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
Received on Mon Aug 08 2011 - 05:27:47 BST
