I agree the deprecation in #314 is different than those currently in the specification. Perhaps deprecation is not the right word for this usage. Maybe instead errata or corrigenda?
Whatever words we use, I'm not sure CF should (or how it would) "disallow" the #314 deprecation in earlier versions of CF. Any existing data written using this feature would have been conforming at the time it was written. To now make that data non-conforming does not seem right. On the other hand, a simple warning does not seem enough. Perhaps CF needs a few categories of deprecations: - **Current CF Deprecations**: still allowed but discouraged (with a conformance warning in all future CF versions). Never to be disallowed. - **Standard Deprecation**: still allowed but discouraged (with a conformance warning, future CF versions may raise an error). - **Error CF Deprecation**: disallowed in future versions (with a conformance error). Back-ported to earlier CF versions, very strongly discouraged (with a conformance [very strong??] warning). (I'm not sure this really helps as what does "very strong error" really mean. Written in all caps and bold text?) -- 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-847316109__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!jQP9yYjy5GDDwaMwQixhC8lhUDpXTbo0DE1HHzBmKGjC95C_l7YXvuhTFBQ8NpZDBudg5LjjZkc$ 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].
