Dear all The existing Unidata recommendation is OK and we could incorporate it into CF but it would help to be more precise, for instance: If the Conventions att includes no commas, it is interpreted as a blank-separated list of conventions; if it contains at least one comma, it is interpreted as a comma-separated list. Blank-separated lists are more CF-like - many CF attributes use that syntax - but obviously we can't insist that other conventions don't have blanks in their names, and it would be simpler therefore to use a comma-separated list for this attribute, despite the Unidata recommendation.
I see no problem with allowing multiple conventions except the important proviso that if the file follows more that one convention it is the responsibility of the data-writer to ensure there is no inconsistency between the metadata following these conventions. That is, they must serve complementary purposes. It would be impossible to check this automatically so we have to depend on the data-writer doing it correctly. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
