Dear Jim > If that is OK within the convention, the only issue I see is that > the convention states that names for area types *must* come from the > area type table. That seems unnecessarily restrictive to me, and > I'd encourage the deletion of the requirement. I know that more > table entries can be requested easily enough, but there are so very > many area types that I can imagine. Do we get enough benefit by > "standardizing" them to offset the cost in time and trouble of the > growth of yet another complex name hierarchy? (I know. Some people > will say "Yes!" I just have to ask.)
It's a fair question. I am one of those who would say "Yes"! If it turns out that this becomes a large problem which we can't deal with effectively, we will have to think again. So far that has not happened. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
