Hi @Dave-Allured , @JonathanGregory : Dave is right, the main motivation for raising this was to see if something of the form: ``` double time(time) ; time:bounds = "time_bnds" ; time: calendar = "noleap" ; double time_bnds(time,nb) ; time_bnds: calendar = "365_day" ; ``` should be considered as valid. My interpretation of the status quo is that the convention is ambiguous, so I don't personally think that a clarification would break with backward compatibility.
The strict interpretation, treating the above as an error, is in line with the current behavior of the `cf-checker`, which is how I became aware of the CMIP6 files which contain this syntax. @Dave-Allured : the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph (line 14) of your text reads "Their data types do not need to be an exact match." I think that "Their" refers to the parent variable and the bounds variable, but grammatically, as written, it appears to refer to the attributes. It might be clearer if placed at the end of line 12? -- 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-737436214 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].
