I assume that @martinjuckes meant that some CMIP files might say `noleap` and others `365_day`. I don't think he meant that there are existing files in which `noleap` was used on the coordinate variable and `365_day` on the bounds, for example, but he was concerned that this might currently be allowed. This proposal would disallow it. If there are any such datasets, they would be invalidated by the next version of the conventions, but not by the version they were written with, of course. In general we don't like even this sort of backward-incompatibility but I think it's harmless in this case. If software chose to rely on the new convention and assume that the bounds had the same calendar as the coordinates without checking, the outcome would still be OK if it's equivalent although not exactly the same string.
-- 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-737372464 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.
