Wouldn't the statement be correct as is (perhaps rewritten slightly; see below), if we indicated that if the computational_precision attribute is *not* specified, a default precision of "32" should be assumed? I would think that almost always the default precision would suffice, so for most data writers, it would be simpler if we didn't require this attribute. (But I don't feel strongly about this.)
Not sure how to word this precisely. Perhaps: ``` The attributes and default values defined for the interpolation formula and its inputs ensure that the results of the coordinate reconstitution process are reproducible and of predictable accuracy. ``` -- 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/327*issuecomment-857929639__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!niPp3UzLiwqz2rv9HvdKZAn4OXeMKihtu7TJYlprdCotRL8WMbfWfzusbvus5Hf5qK35YyVuwYw$ 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].
