Rajarshi Guha wrote: >> (Obviously, I am very much interested in joining the design of the >> SMILES replacement.) > > My understanding was that this was not a SMILES replacement but more > of a 'new' official standard about what a SMILES should or can be, > thus removing ambiguities in the current SMILES spec.
This is a good point to clarify. We are not inventing something new, but rather trying to carefully document a defacto standard, identify the ambiguities and clarify them, and identify and discuss extensions to the existing language. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
