I agree with @roy-lowry on having NULL attributes. Given the input by @roy-lowry and @JonathanGregory above I am not sure whether this should be included or not. If included, another keyword than surface should be used, but neither coverage (which is used in many other contexts) is appropriate given the variety of data that could fit here. If to be included I think a major restructure of conventions is necessary. Although I appreciate clear statements on the nature of data which is useful for applications analysing the data (supporting such an extension), I also see the issue of backwards compatibility. However, backwards compatibility cannot always win, then we get stuck. This is however not an issue which I find important enough to challenge that position.
-- 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/299#issuecomment-693630403 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].
