Folks: It would seem that all the facets of this issue have been discussed.
can closure be reach ? very respectfully, randy On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Mike Grant wrote: > On 13/04/12 10:15, David Hassell wrote: >> That sounds reasonable to me. From a backwards compatibility view >> point, it sounds like any existing software built on the common netCDF >> libraries will already correctly interpret these attributes on >> coordinates ... is that a fair assumption? > >> From what John wrote, I think anything written using the Java netCDF > libraries will unpack coordinates and interpret it correctly. However, > everything else (e.g. using the C libraries) will have to have coded in > their own unpacking support. I imagine a sizeable number (probably the > majority) haven't done so, even for data variables. > > If one is purely seeking to reduce data size, and if the data are > suitable, it's certainly better to use netCDF4 internal compression as > this is fully and transparently supported in all libraries and requires > no specific application level code. Perhaps this could be included in > the unpacking section as a recommendation/point to consider? I'm aware > that the original poster was looking for other conveniences though. > > Cheers, > > Mike. > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > ____________________________________ Randy C. Horne ([email protected]) Principal Engineer, Excalibur Laboratories Inc. voice & fax: (321) 952.5100 url: http://www.excaliburlabs.com _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
