Dear Steve Replying to a comment you made in ticket 68:
> You've probably noticed that Jonathan and I come from different > philosophical camps on these discussions. My position is that the design- > by-committee standards process often leads to standards that are too > complex -- often much too complex. CF is significantly too complex > already. When weighing topics that seem "nice" or "general" or > "potentially useful" but no one is articulating a practical need for them, > I believe the jury (ourselves) should be instructed to weigh those topics > using a "guilty until proven innocent" guideline. That is our bulwark > against creeping complexity. I don't think we disagree about this. In CF we have always applied the principle that we only add to CF when there is a need to do so, i.e. there is a use-case for something which cannot already be represented in CF, and which is likely to be needed by a significant number of users (as far as we can judge). I would usually oppose a new and equivalent way of doing something which we can already do. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
