On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM, John Caron <[email protected]> wrote:
> The current proposal(s) would not change files that are written with > :Conventions="CF-1.x", where x <= 6. Files with x > 6 could still use the > (ill-advised) old way if they want to, by putting an explicit calendar > attribute in. But if theres no explicit calendar attribute, then these new > files will be interpreted in a way that is less likely to give incorrect > dates. > > So, im not sure why you keep saying "shouldn't break current files", since > there is no such proposal on the table. The trick is that I suspect a lot of client software may not check CF version carefully, or at all, or with a version>=something check. I know that I"ve never thought about calendars, but then again, I don't think I've even seen a "since 1-1-1" file either -- that does seem an odd choice! >> But anyway, I wonder if folks currently using such files are actually >> getting the "correct" results, when they do. > those using udunits get the correct result even when they cross the line. i > suspect its correct > because using a different implementation (joda time > library) gets the same results for the > small sample i have tested. Good to know -- though strictly speaking, you need to not only use udunits, but use it correctly -- i.e. with the right calendar. Anyway, I was suggesting that there may be a lot of mis-use of the current default anyway -- I have no idea what folks are using for clients. If there are a lot of clients that don't currently "do the right thing", then maybe we can be less concerned about "breakage". -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception [email protected] _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
