Dear @Dave-Allured I would like this wording which you suggested, "Boundary variable attributes which are significant to CF interpretation (units, standard_name, axis, positive, calendar, leap_month, leap_year and month_lengths) must always agree exactly with the same ...". I think that's a good definition of why we're concerned with them, and I don't see a need to distinguish the groups.
I like your `long_name` paragraph, but I think it would be better after the `formula_terms` paragraph. I feel we should say, "These ones must be like this, these other ones like that, and all the rest it doesn't matter" rather than putting all the rest in the middle. Best wishes and thanks 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-738006781 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.
