Dear @AndersMS and colleagues Thanks very much for taking my comments so seriously and for the modifications and explanations. I agree with all these improvements, with two reservations:
* Do you somewhere state that the size of a tie point interpolated dimension must be less than or equal to the size of the corresponding interpolation dimension? I suggested this sentence somewhere but you haven't included it there. Maybe it is somewhere else. It seems obvious but is nonetheless worth stating. * While I appreciate you want to relate things to interpolation, I would urge you to use a different word from "interpolated", because you're depending on a very attentive reader in sentences such as "A single interpolated dimension may be associated with multiple tie point interpolation dimensions." My suggestion of "reduced" is not necessarily a good one, but it is noticeably different from "interpolation". Also, "interpolated" doesn't seem quite right to me. You mean, it's _going to be_ interpolated. It hasn't _yet_ been interpolated, though. I will study the appendix and conformance document next week sometime. 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/327*issuecomment-868496769__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!nvcZ73XNc658MnzpjP4cELepjBxVYQELl3stBtDUgeaXN-Gc7RoHZqyLRF3KJ0Z2adxQkfUvwBE$ 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].
