[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- From: Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov>
- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:49:01 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <20091204093823.GA10999@emerald.iucr.org>
- References: <20091204093823.GA10999@emerald.iucr.org>
The summary did not include a rationale for all of the quotation rule changes, which is the area that makes the least sense to me. The section defining the rationale for not allowing lexical characters outside the 7-bit range (the first Reasoning paragraph) might mention that it affords faster parsing by deferring any UTF-8 conversions. I see that the commas were left out of the list syntax. It may be good to put a short paragraph about the alternative comma-delimited syntax, so that other people reviewing the proposal have a chance to comment. Thanks, Joe Krahn _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (SIMON WESTRIP)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes (Brian McMahon)
- Prev by Date: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- Next by Date: [ddlm-group] Elide close quotes by doubling?
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of proposed CIF syntax changes
- Index(es):