OK, another thought (sorry): @martinjuckes wrote:
> However, calendar formerly known as gregorian_utc, as described at the start > of this discussion, is not consistent with use of SI time units, and so could > not be used with standard name time. I can't see how such a major step in > increased complexity can be justified. I think this is being kind pedantic: in this case, a second is still a second, but the times are not (to use Jim's word) "metric". I agree that the raw values probably shouldn't be used as a usual time axis. This is what I call "prone to hidden errors" rather than "not SI units" :-) > What is described here has no relation to the concept of calendar as it > currently exists in the CF convention. au contraire: a "calendar" is a way to translate from time-passed-from-a-timestamp to another timestamp. (timestamp being year,day, month, minute, second) -- so I think it fits. > Why are you not prepared to consider working with the structures we have? It's actually the opposite -- we have a real use-case to solve, and Jim's proposal is a way to jam it inot the existing structures. Hence my proposal to create a new structure. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/148#issuecomment-435182946
