Thank you for the comments @AndersMS and @erget.
I like the concise version too, I would just keep my version of the "As an
example ..." paragraph even if it is more verbose because it states exactly
what the attribute means, hopefully leaving no room for misinterpretation.
The "{...] using 64-bit floating-point arithmetic **will** reconstitute [...]"
in the shorter version is misleading from my point of view because it eludes
the software/hardware factor (though I agree it will not be an issue in most
cases).
As for regrouping the 3 paragraphs into one, I think we should keep them
separated so that the content of paragraph 2 stands out: it is really important
to state that exact reproducibility is not what is offered here so that users
don't have unrealistic expectations.
--
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-873101481__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!mR0NrSSMiY12UQZWKIZ0g91s2QsI-Fa_aa7cFmV3vS_lyT8vDFC5XLU-kNzho-OZSDjkRA3viok$
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.
