[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vsbinary/end-of-line . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
- To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2 <cif2-encoding@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vsbinary/end-of-line . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
- From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:36:15 -0500
- Accept-Language: en-US
- acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=XXA9xz5oom3d1Zvg6_oFndpgnwRuQ2T9DJyYy@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTilyJE2mCxprlBYaSkysu1OBjY7otWrXDWm3oOT9@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1006251827270.70846@epsilon.pair.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166122952D@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><33483.93964.qm@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com><AANLkTilqKa_vZJEmfjEtd_MzKhH1CijEIglJzWpFQrrC@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229542@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><AANLkTikTee4PicHKjnnbAdipegyELQ6UWLXz9Zm08aVL@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229552@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><AANLkTinZ4KNsnREOOU6sVFdGYR_aQHcjdWr_ko648NGm@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA5416659DED8C@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><AANLkTintziXhwVCEFD0yUtTDo9KG8ut=oL4OgmkjmEBe@mail.gmail.com><639601.73559.qm@web87008.mail.ird.yahoo.com><AANLkTi=tzw3gqS1Hn199QMXPd1eY7Jf1Zxf0tnaz3ggF@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1008260723260.11865@epsilon.pair.com><AANLkTinMxJ7MgFoyXhf519FTGwGnFRTMbRKhL4dWLcSF@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1009022351260.52468@epsilon.pair.com><AANLkTi=XXA9xz5oom3d1Zvg6_oFndpgnwRuQ2T9DJyYy@mail.gmail.com>
James: I am not ignoring our ongoing blockbuster exchange, but I have been unable to devote the time to it that it deserves. In the mean time, I have a shorter response to these comments: On Thursday, September 02, 2010 11:22 PM, James Hester wrote: >I agree that CIF1 is not *defined* as ASCII-only, and I have no wish >to push for any redefinition. I am stating that CIF1 is used by the >community *as if* it were ASCII-only. I think it's more accurate to say that CIF1 is used by the community under the assumption that CIFs comply with the default text conventions for the environment. This is reasonable, because the CIF1 design assumes that exchange of CIFs between dissimilar environments involves conversion from one set of text conventions to another (sounds familiar?). For example, CIF1 processors are not required to recognize non-native line termination semantics. CIF1's limited character repertoire and the great prevalence of ASCII-compatible character encodings make it tempting to describe that situation as de facto ASCII-only. That is a mischaracterization, however, ignoring CIF1's assumption of text conversion accompanying CIF exchange. That assumption makes a great difference if you want to design CIF software that is reasonably portable to systems that do not default to an ASCII-compatible encoding. > When speculating about the >community response to CIF2, the actual community response to the CIF1 >standard is a perfectly reasonable starting point. Indeed, hence the continuing line of argument that users would want to continue to use CIFs encoded according to local convention, just as they already do. The new and disruptive thing here is support for non-native encodings, which in most places include UTF-8. I want UTF-8, but it's not free. >Are you suggesting that a CIF1 application that accepts only ASCII >encoding is not standards conformant? I am amused to see you arguing the other side of the "CIF software must accept all compliant CIFs" argument now :) . I don't know about Herb, but I would find that program's behavior unacceptable if it were running on an EBCDIC-based computer. The standard says almost nothing about program behavior, so I could not call the *program* non-conformant, but it would reject conformant (EBCDIC-encoded) CIFs that I would expect it to accept. > Because all that I am asserting >is that useful CIF1 programs that support non-ASCII encodings are >either rare or non-existent, despite being allowed by the standard. I >see no hint of non-standards-conforming programs in this description. I suspect that many CIF1 programs would in fact support a non-ASCII encoding just fine when used on a system where that encoding is the default. In fact, I expect that many of them would fail on ASCII- (or UTF-8-)encoded CIFs in such an environment. In other words, I believe that there are many useful CIF1 programs that support non-ASCII encodings, simply as a result of assuming default text conventions. This is the difference between "ASCII-only" and "text". John -- John C. Bollinger, Ph.D. Department of Structural Biology St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer _______________________________________________ cif2-encoding mailing list cif2-encoding@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vsbinary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vsbinary/end-of-line . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [Cif2-encoding] Splitting of imgCIF and other sub-topics
- Next by Date: Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
- Next by thread: Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
- Index(es):