Dear @davidhassell I agree that exact string match is unlike the rest of CF. It seems OK and appropriate to me in this case because providing exactly the same string is the nearest thing to not providing any string, and thus taking the default i.e. the value on the coordinate variable. It is transparent and easy to check that the attribute on the bounds is giving the same information if it must be the same or absent. I think that we would be better off if we had not allowed attributes on bounds variables. However, you could argue there was a purpose or advantage in allowing a different string that meant the same. That would be an enhancement, as you say, for which we need a convincing use-case. Best wishes Jonathan
-- 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/265#issuecomment-630821774 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].
