Dear Daniel Thanks for your responses and comments. Answers to a few questions:
* Yes, I think it would be fine to include Charlie's material on flattening and dismembering, except for the final paragraph about implementations, which isn't essential to the convention. * Including a proper diagram would be unprecedented, I agree, but I don't know a reason not to. Actually there are some tables which are like diagrams in chapter 9 - they used to be in colour, and were prettier like that. * If you're sure you want to put your definitions in ch01, then I'd suggest keeping them together all there, rather than interleaving them with other definitions, and give them a heading in ch01 indicating that they are relevant to groups. You could provide a reference to the later chapter on groups, and a backwards reference from there to the definitions. One reason for my original comment is that the considerable number of these group-related definitions, which are used only in one place in the document, seems unbalanced to me with respect to the existing definitions in ch01, which are used in multiple places. * Yes, I think it's OK to say that paths are like Unix paths. I must have missed that. Not every CF-netCDF user is a user of Unix, though, so it may still be useful to spell it out a bit. * It'll be interesting to hear Charlie's view on the lateral search. I look forward to the next version. Thanks for your work. Cheers Jonathan -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/144#issuecomment-414797231
