Hello @davidhassell 

> I would still like it to be clear that all this only applies to coordinate 
> variables (as opposed to auxiliary coordinate variables). 

I disagree with this point.  This capability applies to coordinate variables 
and auxiliary coordinate variables equally.
That is a key part of the purpose of introducing this syntax in the first place 
and remains a key capability.

The current published version, 1.7, explicitly states: 

> In the second format, it is a blank-separated list of words 
> "grid_mapping_variable:  coordinate_variable [coordinate_variable …​] 
> [grid_mapping_variable: …​]", which identifies one or more grid mapping 
> variables, and with each grid mapping associates one or more 
> coordinate_variables, i.e. coordinate variables or auxiliary coordinate 
> variables.

stating that this applies equally to coordinate variables and auxiliary 
coordinate variables.

I aim to keep this as published in the previous version.  Indeed, I think that 
making this apply to coordinate variables only would result in certain CF1.7 
datasets being deemed not conforming to the conventions for CF1.8, which I 
think is a result that is to be avoided.

Please may I ask?
What is the aim of limiting this capability to netCDF Coordinate Variable 
instances only?
Is exploring such a limitation part of this ticket on stating Axis order for 
CRS WKT? (or is it an independent discussion topic?)

thank you
mark


-- 
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/223#issuecomment-571973352
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].

Reply via email to