[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2 <cif2-encoding@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:02:25 -0500
- Accept-Language: en-US
- acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-Reply-To: <63870.31508.qm@web87006.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
- References: <AANLkTi=hmKNFMgaeMqt69=sG6dOmxZRUrffB1khjF+mZ@mail.gmail.com><63870.31508.qm@web87006.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
On Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:46 AM, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: >1. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII' recently posted here and to COMCIFS. >2. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII', together with Brian's *recommendations* >3. UTF8-only as in the original draft >4. UTF8 + UTF16 >5. UTF8, UTF16 + "local" > >These can be broken down to: > >'any encoding' (1, 2, and 5) > >'specified encoding' (3 and 4) > >Note I put 5 in the 'any encoding' category as I think 'local' could be interpretted as any encoding. I agree that 'local' could be interpreted as "any encoding", but I choose to view it as "context-dependent". Thus a file that is CIF-conformant on one computer might not be CIF-conformant on another. Some will find that unsatisfactory. In my view, however, it is the best interpretation of CIF1's provisions; its purpose is thus to ensure that *all* well-formed CIF1 files are also well-formed CIF2 files (a context-dependent question). Lest I appear to overstate the case, I acknowledge that the UTF8-only and UTF-8 + UTF-16 proposals would have the result that a large majority of well-formed CIF1 files are also well-formed CIF2 files. The variations of Herb’s proposal probably also make all well-formed CIF1 files well-formed CIF2 files, but I disfavor them on different grounds (mostly that they are too open to differing interpretations). [...] >In either case, a degree of work will be required to accommodate user practice and the legacy of CIF1. I think the entire question reduces to which accommodations for the CIF1 legacy are assured by CIF2 vs. which will constitute non-standard extensions. I don’t think that individual responses, from Chester for example, are likely to depend much on which option is adopted, but I do think the overall consistency of responses will be affected. Thus I favor precision of the specification and coverage of the likely uses, in hope of achieving the greatest consistency of response. I doubt this has swayed anyone's opinion, so please consider it an advance explanation for my upcoming vote (inasmuch as I rely on James's previous assurance that voting rights in this context are not restricted to COMCIFS members). Best Regards, 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 listcif2-encoding@iucr.orghttp://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up (SIMON WESTRIP)
- References:
- [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Prev by Date: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- Next by Date: Re: [Cif2-encoding] Splitting of imgCIF and other sub-topics. .. ...
- Prev by thread: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- Next by thread: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- Index(es):