On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Jonathan Gregory <[email protected] > wrote:
> I didn't suggest parsing attribute strings. The same numbers that Ben > would put > in his x and y auxiliary coordinate variables for a single polygon can > appear > in coordinate bounds variables according to the existing convention. OK then, sorry for the confusion, probably me reading it too fast... OK. I didn't investigate this, but it would be good to know about it. If > ugrid can do something like this, but not all of it, maybe ugrid could be > extended. sure. > If ugrid seems too complicated for these cases, maybe a "light" > version of ugrid could be proposed for them. I think we should avoid having > two partially overlapping conventions. I agree -- but it seem like these are really different use cases to me -- sure there are similarities, but a different enough focus that a different standard may make sense -- though hopefully UGRID can inform the "new" one, so as to not have different way to accomplish the parts that are the same. CF2 is not well-defined. I thought it wasn't defined at all. But I think we all share your concerns about that. -CHB -- 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
