I support Roy's other points, but whatever experiences showed Roy the error of
his ways regarding name sorting never crossed my path. ;-) I find the wordings
beginning with quality_flag considerably more intuitive, because the most
important thing is that this is a quality flag, and the second most important
thing is what kind of flag it is. (The aggregate_quality_flag is the only
exception, I could go either way on that.)
The fact that it collects all the quality flags together in the list is a huge
usability improvement, because it reflects how people often find things (by
serendipitous browsing, rather than intentional searching), and creates an
immediate understanding of the quality flag 'offerings' in CF. From a marketing
standpoint this would have a positive impact.
{quote}What happens if somebody in the future adds another batch of Standard
Names beginning 'quality_flag' that go off at a tangent to yours? {quote}
Then (presuming they are all quality flags or related) all of the
quality_flag-related names are collocated, which is a good thing.
But of course I agree the relationship should be established in the definition,
so all bets are covered.
Yay for improving the related examples in the Conventions document.
Alas, all of the advantages may be made moot by the semi-official constructs of
the CF grammar, so I won't be surprised if there's a reason It Can't Be. Just
sayin', it would be a lot more user friendly, at least for this user.
--
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/216#issuecomment-564242550
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
[email protected], although if you do nothing, a subscription to the
UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list.
To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to
[email protected].
