I like Jonathan's suggestion. On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Gregory <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dear all > > John Caron proposed > > > "Applications should treat the data as missing where the auxiliary > coordinates are missing" > > and Steve proposed (an hour later, I think) > > "Application writers should be aware that under some (rare) > circumstances data auxiliary coordinate values may be missing, while > other parameters at the corresponding indices remain valid. While > special purpose applications may be able to glean useful information > at these indices, most applications will want to regard data as > missing where the auxiliary coordinates are missing " > > I could agree to either of these. I prefer John's, because it is simpler, > but > it's more severe than Steve's. A compromise might be possible, e.g. > > Generic applications should treat the data as missing where any auxiliary > coordinate variables have missing values; special-purpose applications > might > be able to make use of the data. > > Any good? > > Cheers > > Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > -- Jim Biard Research Scholar Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites Remote Sensing and Applications Division National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801-5001 [email protected] 828-271-4900
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
