I/we still own (I think) cfconventions.org ... let me know when we should
point it elsewhere from it's current home at llnl.
Cheers
Bryan
On 10 March 2014 20:04, paint...@llnl.gov wrote:
Several of us at LLNL agree that a github-based system is the way to go
for the CF Conventions. And the
Dear Rich
Thanks for keeping this going.
In CF, we have some of these parameters of the vertical coordinate
system specified with the units and positive attributes. And we
already have add_offset that could be used for the vertical shift.
So that just leaves the geoid-based Vertical Datum
Hello,
The summary of CF Metadata Trac tickets has been updated for the 11th
March 2014
(http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~david/cf_trac_summary.html). This page
is also linked from the CF home page (http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/).
Currently:
32 tickets have been accepted [green]
2 tickets are in
Dear David
I'm a bit confused as to the use of these grid_mapping parameters with
vertical coordinates - do we need new grid_mapping_names? I'm
thinking, for example, of linking a geoid specification to a vertical
altitude coordinate.
That's a good point, thanks. I was thinking of the
Richard,
We (meaning LLNL people) don't really have positive plans to stay in
DocBook format. It is simply less effort to use it than to identify
and convert to an alternative, if one exists. We recently bought a copy
of the XMLmind XML Editor, which makes in reasonably tractable to edit
I am willing to take an initial crack at putting the CF Conventions document in
github format, if that's the missing piece.
John
On Mar 11, 2014, at 09:44, Jeffrey F. Painter paint...@llnl.gov wrote:
Richard,
We (meaning LLNL people) don't really have positive plans to stay in DocBook
Hi.
Regarding how ESRI represents vertical CRSs:
When ESRI specifies a particular vertical datum and doesn’t specify the
ellipsoid, it is because the specified vertical datum specifies the ellipsoid.
The fully realized definition still contains a specification of the ellipsoid
that the
All,
Converting to a simpler, more tractable markup format would be nice, but a
couple comments:
A few months ago I looked into converting to a word processor format, but
it looked like a much bigger job than I could afford the time for.
Please dont go that way anyway! XML may be a pain, but
The issue of choosing a markup language to use is more involved than it
might seem.
Here's one of many issues which would have to be settled:
Present CF Conventions policies require that all changes be provisional,
and marked as such in the document, until determined to be permanent at
a
Yes I'd support that. Restructured text is more powerful than Markdown for
large documents. It is not without its quirks but can be worked around.
Also github + readthedocs is a very flexible publishing combination. It works
very well for esgf-pyclient.
Stephen.
--
Stephen Pascoe from
Jeff,
I couldn't find either the CF Conventions policies, or the 'reST-based partial
document at readthedocs.org'. Can you please provide more specific pointers?
John
On Mar 11, 2014, at 14:08, Jeffrey F. Painter paint...@llnl.gov wrote:
The issue of choosing a markup language to use is
11 matches
Mail list logo
