If I've understood your concern correctly, I don't see the problem with the existing wording. It's intended to give guidance for what to do if a data-user notices an inconsistency. Is the problem that it can be understood to imply that the data-reader must read both versions and compare them? If so, maybe we could address that concern by keeping the present wording, but adding some more words to say that the data-user can assume they are consistent, and therefore needs to read only one of them. 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/222#issuecomment-642695084 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.
