...Waffling here, as I do find sections more cut and dry. @ethanrd I'm going
with your first summary and leaving it for the moment ;) I'll wait with the
merge until Friday though so anyone else can give their thoughts.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply
**Alternative**
We could also just move the formatted text to its own line and save space.
**Pro**
You save some vertical space and still have paragraph breaks.
**Con**
It doesn't allow making subsections of e.g. summaries. But one could still use
formatting. And this isn't such a common thing
# No strong objections
My only hesitation is that it will take up more vertical space on the page. I
tend to like this type of summary text to be pretty tight vertically to
minimize the need for scrolling.
**Formatting vs Sections:** I had to play around a bit with formatting and
sections to
I'm in favour as well. Thanks.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/230#issuecomment-574290142
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
I also support the proposal.
--
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/230#issuecomment-574215701
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is
Sounds great to me.
--
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/229#issuecomment-574214547
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
> Are there known efforts or interest to develop some WKT-to-grid_mapping
> translation modules?
I brought this up in the past: https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/issues/1193.
However, I think it would require more interest in the community and/or funding
to make it happen.
I have a basic
I fully support this proposal, I work in the NWCSAF
http://nwc-saf.eumetsat.int/, for the NWCSAF GEO part this inclusion is really
convenient. This inclusion will highly benefit the users' community
Llorenç Lliso
PM Deputy of the NWCSAF
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
I support this proposal to achieve a consistent approach.
--
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/230#issuecomment-574175582
This list forwards relevant
No objections from me.
--
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/228#issuecomment-574173536
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct
**Title:** Fix geostationary projection
**Moderator:**
**Requirement Summary:** We should describe the geolocation data from
geostationary satellites correctly. This is not currently the case.
**Technical Proposal Summary:** Change the error in the Conventions, deprecate
the usage of the
Fine by me. There was no reason to use **strong** text rather than titles when
those were created AFAIK.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
When I make issues following the issue template I find myself hampered by the
fact that our templates use formatting, not sections, to construct the form.
I'd like to use sections so that paragraph breaks are more obvious and have
implemented this in the "Defect" and "Enhancement" templates in
See issue #228 for discussion of these changes.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/229
-- Commit Summary --
* Use sections not formatting to allow paragraphs
-- File Changes --
M
Using well-defined definitions for these terms sounds like a good idea, as well
as, perhaps, reviewing the terms in the main conventions document. @erget's
suggestions for discussing this in it's own right, as opposed to discussing it
on this ticket, sounds like th right way forward, to me.
@DocOtak I love RFC2119 and fully support using it fastidiously. It's been a
great help to me in numerous requirements documents.
I do believe that migrating the document to use those terms correctly and
consistently would be a larger effort that, if desired, should be a separate
"project"
16 matches
Mail list logo
