I continue to think that if we want to allow `grid_mapping` attributes and WKT to have equivalent status, we should write down the mapping between them, so it can be checked automatically. Thanks for pointing out the work on this in `pyproj` - is that your work? Without being able to do this check, I fear that some data-writers who are solely interested in one representation and not familiar with the other will very likely make mistakes and the file will be incorrect. I think this is too unsafe for us to rely on a stated obligation to get it right.
If you have use cases for actual datasets that you want to put in CF but the required projections are not supported in `grid_mapping`, it would be useful to propose adding them to CF. By the way, my problem with not receiving all CF GitHub posting turned out to be that gmail thought some of them were spam, but it wasn't consistent about that - it objected to some comments and not others. -- 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-587593819 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].
