Closed #253 via f38b00dd3d7d5aa5c430e40c3976d0c9d87c0f90.
--
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/253#event-3328836220
This list forwards relevant notifications
OK - are these the three choices, then (in no particular order)?
**i)** Drop the word _exactly_ from
_"must always agree exactly with the same attributes of its associated
coordinate, scalar coordinate or auxiliary coordinate variable"_ (7.1)
as rectifying a **defect**.
**ii)** Keep the
Evidently we didn't think of this problem. As far as I remember, I had in mind
that the strings would have to be exactly the same (B), because it's simpler to
check and consistent with them not being needed anyway, which is why they're
deprecated in general.
--
You are receiving this because
Hi @davidhassell : thanks.
There is a use case for providing attributes on bounds variables in the Trac
ticket which you cited ([140](https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/140)) :
@taylor13 describes a usage where the user needs to know the `units` of the
bounds variable and does not make use
Hej @TomLav ,
No worries about the "mess" - it's no bother to anyone and every community has
its own way of doing things, so we're all located somewhere along the same
learning curve ;)
Concerning the clarifications (1) and (2) you propose, I've implemented some
changes in bc93215.
