[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on BOM
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on BOM
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:00:09 +1000
- In-Reply-To: <8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229515@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
- References: <AANLkTikPRP0zLmeWCde-UjR599qJBDP4ps8mpT2FB07E@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229515@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
Hi John: actually, your vote counts as much as anybody else's here! We should probably call the votes straw polls. The only vote that will count formally is the COMCIFS vote to accept the standard. On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Bollinger, John C <John.Bollinger@stjude.org> wrote: > > As far as I am aware, I do not have voting rights here, not formally being a member of the DDLm working group. If I did have, these would be my votes (and feel free to count them anyway ;-) ): > >>1. Treatment of UTF8 BOM as first three bytes of a CIF2 file >> (a) Syntax error/Non CIF2 file >> (b) UTF8-BOM followed by #\#CIF2.0 is a valid CIF2 magic number > > I favor Herb's position that CIF2 should be defined as a Unicode text format, in which context encoding would be out of scope. Thus an initial BOM should be allowed and handled by the decoder (or simply allowed by a parser that attempts to defer decoding). This assumes that the processor supports UTF-8, which I would be satisfied to make a non-exclusive requirement on CIF2 processors. > > (b), more or less. > >>2. Treatment of UTF8 BOM in a CIF file, other than as the first three bytes: >> (a) Always a syntax error >> (b) Syntactic whitespace >> (c) An ordinary character: >> (i) May appear only in delimited data values and comments >> (ii) May appear anywhere other ordinary characters can >>appear (i.e. including datanames, datablock names etc.) >> (d) Silently ignored > > (c)(i) > >>3. Treatment of UCS BOM in a CIF file >> (a) Syntax error >> (b) Encoding switch > > Inasmuch as I favor defining CIF as a text format, these alternatives do not make sense, as they relate to encoding details. I am against CIF requiring processors to support encoding schemes that provide for embedded encoding switches, but I am perfectly satisfied for CIF to *allow* processors to support such schemes. That amounts to > > (c) Encoding scheme dependent > > > John > -- > John C. Bollinger, Ph.D. > Department of Structural Biology > St. Jude Children's Research Hospital > > > Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer > > _______________________________________________ > ddlm-group mailing list > ddlm-group@iucr.org > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > -- T +61 (02) 9717 9907 F +61 (02) 9717 3145 M +61 (04) 0249 4148 _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Vote on BOM (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on BOM (Bollinger, John C)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Recommended character set and use restrictions
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Recommended character set and use restrictions
- Next by thread: [ddlm-group] Questions about Methods
- Index(es):