> I think the acceptance of WKT as an 'allowed' container in those original > proposals implicitly adopted the second view. To my understanding no tests > for WKT content validity have been added, and tools have not been required to > change anything. The gist of the proposal seemed in line with that view, > because WKTs would still be optional and the CF attributes would still be > required to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, I think the best approach > is to modify the proposal to make it fully consistent with the second view, > because that lets CF dynamically and quickly adapt to advanced needs of an > important community.
I think this is a beneficial approach. -- 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/222#issuecomment-573423596 This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from cf-metad...@cgd.ucar.edu, 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 cf-metadata-unsubscribe-requ...@listserv.llnl.gov.
