[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Character set for data block and save frame codes
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Character set for data block and save frame codes
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:24:03 +1000
- In-Reply-To: <8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229518@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
- References: <AANLkTikPRP0zLmeWCde-UjR599qJBDP4ps8mpT2FB07E@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229515@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><84803.69690.qm@web87001.mail.ird.yahoo.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229518@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
Hi John, I believe you are correct that the expanded character set is available to save frames and data block names. I think datanames were picked on specifically because they play a central role in datafiles and dictionaries, whereas save frames occur only as a placeholder in dictionaries, and data block names are largely arbitrary. So the latter two were not addressed specifically. We should amend the draft to include this explicit enlargement of the save_frame/data block name character set. James. On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Bollinger, John C <John.Bollinger@stjude.org> wrote: > Hello All, > > > > The current spec defines an expanded character set (relative to CIF 1.x) for > data names, but it does not explicitly do the same for data block or save > frame codes. Inasmuch as the CIF2 spec is written in terms of changes to > CIF1, it is not clear to me whether data block and save frame codes are > allowed to use the same expanded character repertoire (based on the general > expansion of the character set), or whether they are still under CIF1 rules > (because no specific change is made). If the former, then it’s not clear to > me why data names are called out specifically and the others are not. > > > > I speculate that data names are called out for historical reasons, on the > assumption that the comments relating to data names in a DDLm dictionary may > at one time have been actual restrictions. I infer that it is the intent > that the expanded character set be available to data block and save frame > codes, but I am not confident about that. Am I right? It would be helpful > if this were explicit. > > > > > > 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)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on BOM (SIMON WESTRIP)
- [ddlm-group] Character set for data block and save frame codes (Bollinger, John C)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Recommended character set and use restrictions
- Next by Date: [ddlm-group] Multiple encodings for CIF2?
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Recommended character set and use restrictions. .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Recommended character set and use restrictions
- Index(es):