I support the original request. CF should accept well known units such as ppm
and ppmv without error, warning, or prejudice. These only improve the
information content, not detract. Such units are more meaningful to humans
than current recommendations like "1" and "1e-6".
--
You are
Closed #262 via #263.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/262#event-3269789415
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
Merged #263 into master.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/263#event-3269789400
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
@erget approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/263#pullrequestreview-400012871
This list forwards relevant notifications from
It's not clear how this repository relates to the github.io web page and how
the travis build publishes that latest spec.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The last point, raised by Ryan @dopplershift, is of course a reasonable
question and has been raised before. If others agree with my answer, we should
put it in the FAQ.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I agree with what has been said by @martinjuckes, @cameronsmith1 and
@roy-lowry. I don't think dimensionless units should be used to distinguish
between dimensionless quantities, since that's the purpose of standard names,
but Roy's preference for explicitly describing the dimensionless ratios
> Now, however (twenty years later), standard names are well-established in
> their own right, I would say, and the mapping between different metadata
> standards belongs better outside the standard, in neutral territory.
I fully agree with this and the activities of ENVO are better suited for
Thanks you for raising this, Lars. I support your initiative to do something
about it. I agree that doing nothing but updating the links would be to correct
a defect.
Going further than that would be an enhancement, as you say, and I agree with
others that we should do so. As far as I know,
