I also prefer the first version, and the option of keeping the recommendation to avoid the form `x(x,l)` as it is.
I would prefer to use "must" rather than "shall". In most cases the existing text uses "must", and introducing "shall" as a variation in a small number of places looks confusing to me (especially as we have not declared that we are using the conventions which makes them equivalent). I would also like to formulate the definition so that it can be easily parsed into a logical statement. I'm sorry if I'm missing something here, but I don't see how the proposed text meets you objective of having a clear logical structure. As you stressed this point earlier, I suspect that you intend the definition to have a clear logical structure. Can you give me an indication as to how you see this working? My concern is that I we need a clear means of identifying a dimension coordinate variable before we start imposing requirements. Your text appears to treat the two constraints "shall be a one-dimensional variable that has the same name as its dimension" and "shall have a numeric type and the contents shall be strictly monotonic" as having equivalent logical structures, and this is not consistent with the above discussion. I can't really comment on the merits of moving the Terminology section to the appendix at this point .. but I have the feeling that it would have to be treated as a separate issue. -- 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/174#issuecomment-597761340 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].
