Speaking as someone that has been trying to make sense of very diverse CF files with nothing but the CF-Convention in my hand, I have to say the fact that dimension coordinates can be identified by name and dimension being the same is a good thing.
It is very hard to correctly identify, for example, auxiliary coordinates and cell_measures because this status can not be inferred from the variables themselves, but only from analyzing all relevant variables. This is possible in an ad-hoc fashion, but hard to implement in a parser. It becomes harder when "all relevant variables" might be spread over several files or exist only in an object storage or similar. Generally, the convention does a good job of telling people with data how to put this into netcdf files. It is far more difficult to work with in the other direction. Keeping dimensional variables easily identifiable is a good step in that direction and so I personally support strongly to forbid `string x(x):`. In fact, I would like to see CF move in a direction where it becomes easier to identify the character of all variables, but that is a discussion for another day. -- 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-598624346 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].
