Dear Steve I agree with all you say about the messiness of it, certainly. I also agree that we should change the default for datasets created with the next version of CF (as I have voted in Cecelia's poll). I think the choice of the default is the main issue we are trying to agree on, isn't it.
>From your last posting I understand that you think we should remove support entirely from CF for the mixed Julian-Gregorian calendar. I don't agree with that still. Despite its messiness, especially that it changed at different times in different countries, it is possible to define the "real world" calendar, by making a particular choice (as udunits and cal(1) do), and anyone dealing with historical data archives has to do that as well. Hence it is usable, if inconvenient. Even if no-one replies on this email list to say that they are using it, I don't think we should remove it from CF. CF has been a standard for more than a decade and the readers of this email list do not speak for all existing data and applications which make use of CF. Since udunits and cal and no doubt many other softwares support the real-world calendar, despite its messiness, I think it would be excessive for CF not to do so. By changing the default, however, we can greatly reduce the risk of errors being made, and it is important to do that. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
