#147: clarification of standard and correction of conformance doc: formula_terms
  Reporter:  taylor13        |      Owner:  cf-conventions@…
      Type:  defect          |     Status:  new
  Priority:  high            |  Milestone:
 Component:  cf-conventions  |    Version:
Resolution:                  |   Keywords:

Comment (by martin.juckes):

 Hello All,

 I think there are 4 ways that the CF-Checker could deal with this: when
 the CF-checker encounters `formula_terms` on a variable which is not a
 coordinate, it could:
   1. issue an error,
   2. issue a warning that the attribute has no meaning in this context,
   3. issue an information message that the attribute has no meaning in
 this context,
   4. do nothing.

 1. is what currently happens, but I would support Karl's arguments for
 moving away from this. The main problem which I can see with the other
 extreme, 4., is related to the point David raised, that the attribute is
 being used with no clear meaning: this may mean that the author of the
 file has tried to put information in and failed.

 How about option 3., which would at least give the author a hint that the
 attribute is not where it is expected?


Ticket URL: <https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/147#comment:20>
CF Metadata <http://cf-convention.github.io/>
CF Metadata

Reply via email to