Dear @ethanrd and @davidhassell I would say that the conformance document should provide our definitive list of deprecations. A "deprecation" there is a recommendation not to do it; the CF checker gives a warning about any recommendation that can be checked and isn't followed. Any deprecations that are mentioned in the text should be in the conformance document. Maybe not all of those Ethan has detailed are in it, but they should be, I would argue. The first one is there, for example (in section 3.1 of conformance). Not all of them can be checked automatically, or not easily, but they should still be stated anyway, I think.
The deprecation of flawed versions, like in https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/314__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!kUMurOT8rcYIzXXzAhlU6BrEToF41437qUTEuV23qou4AwZaz6trDPym9saIq-h42zjFG4LsGjY$ , is different. In this case, we have identified an error in the convention, which allows metadata to be written that *can't* be interpreted reliably. In the other cases, there's nothing actually wrong, and the recommendations are made with the aim of writing metadata which is easier to use in some way. Best wishes Jonathan -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/328*issuecomment-847036918__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!kUMurOT8rcYIzXXzAhlU6BrEToF41437qUTEuV23qou4AwZaz6trDPym9saIq-h42zjFTBRSgDE$ 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].
