Hello Jonathan, I would support Phil's suggestion. I have been asked to clarify this before.
Cheers, Roy. >>> Jonathan Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/22/08 8:57 AM >>> Dear Phil > Do you think it would it be useful to > add a short footnote to this effect to section 3.3, or is the use of the > phrase "physically equivalent (not necessarily identical)" in that > section self-evident? I don't know, really - I wonder what others think? Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
