[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 09:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikFbB7MD98zLFUlqeIo0EXjC0DKhUjB6ZIzdKv0@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTinyZHG0sy6PtQsxVO9MFSjPnfxY8UaR9eA_OA1y@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTikFbB7MD98zLFUlqeIo0EXjC0DKhUjB6ZIzdKv0@mail.gmail.com>
Even though I do not agree with many of the restrictions in this document, I urge starting discussion of these changes on the various community-wide discussion lists. I suggest announcements to pdb-l, ccp4bb and ccp4-dev lists. -- Herbert ===================================================== Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121 Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 +1-631-244-3035 yaya@dowling.edu ===================================================== On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, James Hester wrote: > Brian has now posted the document. You can find it at: > http://www.iucr.org/resources/cif/spec/cif-2-development > > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM, James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote: > I am happy to proceed as Brian suggests. As far actually preparing a draft goes, on May 7 John B kindly > provided me with an editable version of the original draft specification with those suggested changes of > his that were uncontroversial already included. I have updated that draft making the following specific > changes: > > 1. Change the 2048-byte limit to a 2048-character limit > 2. Incorporate XML-type newline handling > 3. Refer to UTF-8 as the designated encoding for files conformant to the specification > 4. State that U+FEFF is not part of the allowed character set (ie. would be everywhere a syntax error). I > include this as the voting on this point, such as it was, gave a slight majority to option 2(a) over option > 2(c)(ii). > 5. Disallow Unicode non-characters. I have *not* dealt with the issue of disallowing non-printing > characters. As the draft currently stands, non-printing characters are acceptable. > > The updated draft is in Brian's hands, and I'm hoping he will post it to the IUCr website shortly for your > comment. > > James. > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org> wrote: > Colleagues > > Like Buridan's ass we are starving to death between the equally > enticing mound of hay that is UTF-8 and the smorgasbord of mixed > vegetables offered by multiple encodings. > > I suggest that this group complete a *draft* CIF2 specification > that describes (if necessary) specific character allusions in > terms of a canonical UTF-8 encoding, and states that UTF-8 is the > designated encoding for files conformant to the specification. > > Post the completed draft in the first instance to the cif-developers > list (since that is supposed to the the most relevant target audience), > but certainly to other lists at the same time if folk think that would > be productive. By all means accompany the release with a commentary on > the difficulties we have faced over the encoding issue; by all means > implement a survey and analyse the results to assess community demand > for an upward revision of the draft - but let us give people something > concrete to begin with, and challenge them actively to protest if the > proposal will impede their work. > > Note that this proposal doesn't necessarily reflect a personal > preference for a single mandatory encoding - I still cannot > decide which I "prefer". But if the suggested draft is published, > I will not vote against it unless I suddenly see clearly a real > problem that it would throw up in the way of any applications I > would envisage writing. I would hope "the community" would respond > in similar vein, so that stated objections would both represent real > difficulties and help to define the environments giving rise to these > real difficulties. > > Best wishes > Brian > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > 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]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (James Hester)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- Index(es):