>
> >
> > -Original Message----- From: CF-metadata
> > [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Hattersley,
> > Richard Sent: 04 February 2015 09:04 To: CF Metadata List Subject:
> > Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
> >
;
>
> -Original Message- From: CF-metadata
> [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Hattersley,
> Richard Sent: 04 February 2015 09:04 To: CF Metadata List Subject:
> Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have a crea
Dear Jonathan,
I think that for checking that your version is correct, I would
compare it with the official existing PDF of CF 1.6. Do you have
the DocBook source for that, corresponding to
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
I've briefly looked at Richard's html example and AsciiDoc source.
I'm impressed by the readability of the AsciiDoc source, something which
is lacking in DocBook. This would make it much more practical for
people to edit
[mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 16 February 2015 11:54
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
Dear Richard
This looks really beautiful. :-) Thank you for your hard work on it.
Looking through
Dear Richard
Thanks for addressing the example-numbering.
Can you generate a PDF?
I can ... but there will probably need to be another thread of work to iron
out any wrinkles in the PDF conversion software. Now that the single-page
HTML version has made good progress I'll start to give
@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
re: http://cf-metadata.github.io/cf-conventions.html
I've been tinkering in the evenings and now the AsciiDoc form of the
conventions is somewhere near alpha release quality. It still has some
small quirks here
are very welcome.
Regards,
Richard
-Original Message-
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Hattersley, Richard
Sent: 04 February 2015 09:04
To: CF Metadata List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
Dear all,
I have a created
:21
To: Signell, Richard
Cc: CF Metadata List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
there is still a fair amount of work left to be done converting the document.
Is that something that will improve with your improvements to the
conversion tool, or will some community
-metadata.github.io/cf.html#ortho_multi
Regards,
Richard
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey F. Painter [mailto:paint...@llnl.gov]
Sent: 27 January 2015 17:19
To: Hattersley, Richard; Gregory, Jonathan; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
Richard,
Wow, thanks for doing all this hard work for the CF community!
I think Asciidoc is okay since it renders in Github and, as you say, has a
richer model more analogous to docbook.
Looking at:
http://cf-metadata.github.io/cf
,
Richard
-Original Message-
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Hattersley, Richard
Sent: 27 January 2015 16:50
To: Gregory, Jonathan; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
Jonathan,
Thanks
. Painter [mailto:paint...@llnl.gov]
Sent: 27 January 2015 17:19
To: Hattersley, Richard; Gregory, Jonathan; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
I've briefly looked at Richard's html example and AsciiDoc source.
I'm impressed by the readability
Dear John, Seth and all.
- Forwarded message from John Graybeal jbgrayb...@mindspring.com -
On Jan 27, 2015, at 08:31, Jonathan Gregory j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk wrote:
...all changes ever since the first version are still shown as provisional
because we have no rule for accepting
Jonathan, thanks for this update, just the information I was looking for. I
agree this is a good opportunity for this discussion, and a good one to start
on the list.
In what follows, I explore the need for a provisional period, and advocate its
elimination. Instead we can add a simple
Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 27 January 2015 16:32
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
Dear Richard
Thank you very much for trying this out. It looks really good. Not all
the formatting is quite right, as I am sure you know e.g
,
Richard
-Original Message-
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 27 January 2015 16:32
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
Dear Richard
Thank you very much for trying this out
Message-
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 27 January 2015 16:32
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
Dear Richard
Thank you very much for trying this out. It looks really good. Not all
Dear all,
Summary for the time-pressed reader:
- Some of us would like to simplify the workflow for editing the CF conventions.
- I've made a work-in-progress demo here:
http://cf-metadata.github.io/cf-conventions.html.
- The demo is automatically built from AsciiDoc sources here:
These are wonderful news! The editing, tracking, and publishing workflow
will be extremely easy if this is adopted. Not to say that it will be more
democratic as well thanks to GitHub PRs.
I have one question and two offer.
Question: Why Asciidoc instead of Markdown? (I noticed that, like
the prior versions to GitHub if necessary or if the
latest DocBook version is updated in the meantime.
Richard
From: Filipe Pires Alvarenga Fernandes [mailto:ocef...@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 January 2015 16:21
To: Hattersley, Richard
Cc: CF Metadata List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing
.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Hattersley, Richard
richard.hatters...@metoffice.gov.uk -
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:03:48 +
From: Hattersley, Richard richard.hatters...@metoffice.gov.uk
To: CF Metadata List cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] Editing
@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
Dear Richard
Thank you very much for trying this out. It looks really good. Not all the
formatting is quite right, as I am sure you know e.g. in the examples, and
especially in Appendix D. I see that the doc doesn't say which
...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 27 January 2015 16:32
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
Dear Richard
Thank you very much for trying this out. It looks really good. Not all
the formatting is quite right, as I am sure
: 20 March 2014 14:22
To: 'Schultz, Martin'; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow (Hattersley, Richard)
Instead of immediately releasing 1.7, there would be a, say six months
period where we have 1.6 as official version and 1.7-beta as test
candidate
: www.metoffice.gov.uk
-Original Message-
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Schultz, Martin
Sent: 18 March 2014 14:03
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow (Hattersley, Richard)
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014
j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk,
cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
I'd like to propose changing the rules. That's something the conventions
committee can agree, I believe. I would suggest the simplest possibility
j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:09 AM
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Dear Richard
That's right. No change since 1.0 has so far passed beyond being
provisional
since we didn't definitely agree how to do that. I am
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:36 +
From: Hattersley, Richard richard.hatters...@metoffice.gov.uk
To: Gregory, Jonathan j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk,
cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Message-ID
AM
*To*: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
*Subject*: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Dear Richard
That's right. No change since 1.0 has so far passed beyond being
provisional
since we didn't definitely agree how to do that. I am not strongly in
favour of
provisional status myself
*From*: Jonathan Gregory j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
*Sent*: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:09 AM
*To*: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
*Subject*: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Dear Richard
That's right
, 2014 7:09 AM
*To*: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
*Subject*: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Dear Richard
That's right. No change since 1.0 has so far passed beyond being
provisional
since we didn't definitely agree how to do that. I am not strongly in
favour of
provisional
...@reading.ac.uk
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Message-ID: 20140313172331.gh32...@met.reading.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dear Jeff
[...]
Yes, this is a issue. As Richard said, it doesn't matter how it is marked. The
problem
: Jonathan Gregory j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Message-ID: 20140313172331.gh32...@met.reading.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dear Jeff
[...]
Yes, this is a issue. As Richard said, it doesn't
Dear Jeff
Present CF Conventions policies require that all changes be
provisional, and marked as such in the document, until determined to
be permanent at a later time (this determination has never been
made).
That's the meaning of all the pink and yellow highlighting in the
document at
AM
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Dear Jeff
Present CF Conventions policies require that all changes be
provisional, and marked as such in the document, until determined to
be permanent at a later time (this determination has never been
made
We could say that, after one year from acceptance or when the next version
of the conventions document is published, whichever is later, a change
becomes permanent. What do you think?
Perhaps I am just a radical and out of touch with this community, but... This
wording suggests a rather
-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey F. Painter
Sent: 12 March 2014 00:20
To: John Graybeal
Cc: Stephen Pascoe; CF metadata
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
For what I called policies, see the preface to the CF Conventions document
and the rules for changes at
http://cf
] On Behalf Of Jeffrey F. Painter
Sent: 10 March 2014 20:04
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edumailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Several of us at LLNL agree that a github-based system is the way to go for the
CF Conventions. And the previous messages
On 12/03/14 17:41, Jeffrey F. Painter wrote:
You may have gathered that I don't think the highlighting system has
worked as well as originally intended, so I would welcome a change -
whether or not we continue to use DocBook, etc.
As someone that reasonably often consults the conventions
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
Message-
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey F. Painter
Sent: 10 March 2014 20:04
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Several of us at LLNL agree that a github-based system is the way to go for the
CF
...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey F. Painter
Sent: 10 March 2014 20:04
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Several of us at LLNL agree that a github-based system is the way to go for
the CF Conventions. And the previous messages on this thread
?
Richard
-Original Message-
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
Of Jeffrey F. Painter
Sent: 10 March 2014 20:04
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Several of us at LLNL agree
-boun...@cgd.ucar.edumailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu]
On Behalf Of Jeffrey F. Painter
Sent: 10 March 2014 20:04
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edumailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Several of us at LLNL agree that a github-based system is the way
-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu]
On Behalf Of Jeffrey F. Painter
Sent: 10 March 2014 20:04
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edumailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Several of us at LLNL agree that a github-based system is the way to go
for the CF
-Original Message-
From: CF-metadata
[mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edumailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu]
On Behalf Of Jeffrey F. Painter
Sent: 10 March 2014 20:04
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edumailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing
Hi all,
I've recently been dipping into the UGRID conventions
(https://github.com/ugrid-conventions/ugrid-conventions) and was struck by how
pleasant the editing/publishing workflow was. Clearly from a content complexity
point of view the UGRID conventions are smaller and simpler than CF so a
Richard,
I think moving to github would be a huge improvement. The git model
and the tools that github provides would make it much easier for other
folks to propose changes, and for those changes to be reviewed,
discussed and merged.I think Brian and a few others were also in
favor when we
Several of us at LLNL agree that a github-based system is the way to go
for the CF Conventions. And the previous messages on this thread turn
out to be very timely!
For background, over the last few months our Plone-based web site has
become unmaintainable as we lost infrastructure support.
50 matches
Mail list logo
