[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tidying up DDL1 (last time?)

• Subject: Re: Tidying up DDL1 (last time?)
• From: Matthew Towler <towler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:26:35 +0100
• In-Reply-To: <E88024C0BA8052478C717D472F978C1803251E44@iu-mssg-mbx05.exchange.iu.edu>
• References: <E88024C0BA8052478C717D472F978C1803251E44@iu-mssg-mbx05.exchange.iu.edu>

> I don't think I see how
> supporting two different versions of DDL 1 would be any more difficult
> than supporting both DDL 1 and DDL 2; could you expand on that?  Any way
> around, I would expect most new software to support just the
> (hypothetical) DDL 1.5, not both 1.4 (or earlier) and 1.5.

The sentence following your question and the quote below make my 
comments rather redundant.  As long as a hypothetical DDL 1.5 did not 
make the vast majority of existing DDL 1.4 CIFs invalid then there is 
not a problem and programs could be updated as you suggest. I had 
misunderstood that 1.4 and 1.5 would be incompatible in some way.

> It is also desirable that any DDL changes should
> not ... render
> CIFs invalid that are valid under the dictionaries as they stand today.
> very many of the CIFs written against the [current]
> core dictionary are *not* valid *because* of .. dictionary and
> DDL flaws ... it may be that the proposed changes will be able to make many of
> these currently-invalid CIFs valid against the revised dictionary / DDL
> combination.

Thanks for the clarification

Matthew Towler


_______________________________________________
cif-developers mailing list
cif-developers@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Follow-Ups:
  • DDL1-DDL2 (James Hester)

• References:
  • RE: Tidying up DDL1 (last time?) (Bollinger, John Clayton)

• Prev by Date: RE: Tidying up DDL1 (last time?)
• Next by Date: DDL1-DDL2
• Prev by thread: RE: Tidying up DDL1 (last time?)
• Next by thread: DDL1-DDL2
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread