Hi all,
my opinion is to keep with the current recommendation, which better supports automatic parsing and the existing conforming datasets.
In particular, I would avoid any parsing rule for the conventions attribute, keeping its syntax as simple as possible (as Jonathan points out, blank-separated lists are more CF-like).
I think it makes sense to require convention identifiers not to contain spaces (as usual in identifiers).
Those conventions that have not followed Unidata recommendation may be dealt with on a transitional basis (e.g. by means of specific parsing exceptions), while they are aligned in a future revision.
Best wishes,
LB
Il giorno 22/dic/2011, alle ore 10:11, Jonathan Gregory ha scritto:
> Dear all
>
> The existing Unidata recommendation is OK and we could incorporate it into
> CF but it would help to be more precise, for instance: If the Conventions att
> includes no commas, it is interpreted as a blank-separated list of conventions;
> if it contains at least one comma, it is interpreted as a comma-separated list.
> Blank-separated lists are more CF-like - many CF attributes use that syntax -
> but obviously we can't insist that other conventions don't have blanks in their
> names, and it would be simpler therefore to use a comma-separated list for
> this attribute, despite the Unidata recommendation.
>
---
Dott. Lorenzo Bigagli
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Istituto di Metodologie per l'Analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA)
i: Area della Ricerca di Potenza, Contrada Santa Loja
Zona Industriale, 85050 Tito Scalo (PZ), Italia
t: +39 0971 427221
f: +39 0971 427222
m: lorenzo.bigagli at cnr.it
Received on Thu Dec 22 2011 - 04:01:27 GMT
