Dear Jonathan,
However the definition of this existing standard name does not comment on the perplexity of two "in"s. I do believe we discussed this before, but I can't remember when. I wonder whether we could take advantage of your proposal to change these names in order to remove the problem. What would read most clearly?
Yes, we should resolve it.
For example mass_fraction_of_water_contained_within_pm10_in_air "contained within" is a longer way of saying "content of", which would be more natural, but I wouldn't suggest that because "content" is used in another specific sense in standard names (the amount of something per unit area).
That seems to be a good solution. Best wishes, Daniel _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
