""" I think your proposal to allow binary time stamps is a good one. Or even string time stamps. It could have a standard name of time_stamp. For example, if you organize a binary time stamp in 4-bit fields (which can be marked up using flag_masks and flag_meanings attributes) in high-to-low bit order YYYY-MM-DD-HH-mm-ssss where ssss represents centiseconds, you have a monotonic result.
yup -- though thinking more, I think we should probably just go with strings -- I don't think there is any existing standard for a binary form, so users would need to be writing custom byte-manipulation code both to read and write these. Until/unless it gets built into the netcdf libs, it would be a pretty big barrier to entry. """ I will say, however, that we have this large user base in the wild that isn't working this way. Even if we added this as an option, I feel like we need to give recognition to the existing use case. """ Recognition is not the same as endorsement -- codifying it into CF is endorsement. And this new calendar will apply only to new files anyway, users will need to make at least a small change it their workflow to use it -- if we gave tham an almost-as-easy alternative, then we're OK, yes? -- 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-435993460
