Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote

Dear James,

 I don't mind if the approval of CIF2 has priority if the debate
on that ends before debate on the concatenation operator, but
imasmuch as either the concatenation operator or some other
replacement for the line folding protocol is necessary before
CIF2 can become a full replacement for CIF1, I would suggest
that the matter be brought to COMCIFS at the same time
and we see what happens.

 I would also like to bring the issue of how we transition
imgCIF before COMCIFS.  That is anther area where CIF2 does
not yet provide support.

 Regards,
   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 Thu, 28 Oct 2010, James Hester wrote:

My count is 2 in favour, 4 against, with Simon (whose vote doesn't appear to have come in)
potentially making that 3 in favour and 4 against.  These are not entirely convincing numbers
for either side. However, although the proponents of the concatenation operator are free to
address COMCIFS on this question, a replay of this vote within COMCIFS would lead to at least 3
opposed and at least one in favour, with Nick's opposition making it (at best) a 4-2 vote
against.  So, I suggest that at this point we delay any further consideration of concatenation
until COMCIFS has approved CIF2.

In a subsequent email I will therefore put the current CIF2 spec to a DDLm group vote, and
assuming it passes will present it to COMCIFS for final approval.
--
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