Jonathan,
Sounds like we are in agreement! Thanks for your patience with me. I defer
on the question of forms of deprecation, abolishment, etc to you and others
in the community.
Grace and peace,
Jim
[image: CICS-NC] <
http://www.cicsnc.org/>Visit us on
Facebook <
http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc>*Jim Biard*
*Research Scholar*
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC <
http://cicsnc.org/>
North Carolina State University <
http://ncsu.edu/>
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information <
http://ncdc.noaa.gov/>
*formerly NOAA?s National Climatic Data Center*
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
e: jbiard at cicsnc.org
o: +1 828 271 4900
*Connect with us on Facebook for climate
<
http://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIclimate> and ocean and geophysics
<
http://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIoceangeo> information, and follow us on
Twitter at _at_NOAANCEIclimate
<
http://www.twitter.com/NOAANCEIclimate>and _at_NOAANCEIocngeo
<
http://www.twitter.com/NOAANCEIocngeo>.*
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
> wrote:
> Dear Jim
>
> > Man, are we ever getting close now!
> I am sure that everyone else is quite tired of listening to us by now, if
> they
> still are. :-)
>
> > The gregorian_utc_lse case was my way of distinguishing the entirely
> > approximate case of gregorian_nls from the case where you have a UTC
> > reference timestamp that is firmly embedded in the real world, had input
> > timestamps that were also UTC and firmly embedded in the real world, but
> > used a mismatched algorithm when you created your elapsed times. (The
> > algorithm was likely the POSIX/nls algorithm, but it could also have been
> > the GPS algorithm, for example.)
> ...
> > This was my stab at an explicit declaration. As I mentioned, this case
> > really isn't terribly far off from the gregorian_nls case. A
> misapplication
> > of encoding algorithm has rendered the result (possibly) approximate, so
> > with appropriate wording in the definition the gregorian_nls calendar
> would
> > likely be enough.
>
> OK, I see. The cases are materially the same, aren't they; the difference
> is
> whether it's accidental or on purpose. If we can devise wording which
> covers
> both cases at once, and call it gregorian_nls (which is simpler), I think
> that
> would be preferable.
>
> You suggested we might permit "gregorian" as a synonym for this, for
> backward
> compatibility. If we do so, I think we should deprecate "gregorian", so
> the CF
> checker gives a warning. Much earlier in this discussion, I proposed that
> we
> should disallow any default or "standard". These would be
> backward-incompatible
> changes, which I usually oppose! Maybe that is too severe, and we should
> retain
> those possibilities as well as synonyms for gregorian_nls, but also
> deprecated.
> But it would seem odd to have as default a calendar which isn't accurately
> the
> real world and is not standard. Therefore I'm still inclined towards
> abolishing
> them. What do you think?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150626/977ab63f/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Fri Jun 26 2015 - 10:50:04 BST
