[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The CIF BNF

• Subject: Re: The CIF BNF
• From: Brian McMahon <bm@xxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:29:42 +0100 (BST)

Nick

The version you posted differs from the one I previewed in its additional
annotations. I want to (1) flag an error and (2) raise a question.

(1) CIF datanames now have no formal length restriction (see
    http://www.iucr.org/iucr-top/cif/cif_core/diff2.0-1.0.html#syn) - but
    they still have to fit within a line of text.

Hence
(2) When writing vcif, I took the "80-character limit" to be in spirit
    independent of platform and thus the number of characters before the
    <newline> byte sequence. I would still favour that interpretation
    (otherwise existing CIFs will break, and to guard against operating
    systems that invoke even more varied text record delimiting systems).

What do others think about (2)? 

Brian

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Prev by Date: CIF BNF Part 2
• Next by Date: Re: The CIF BNF
• Prev by thread: The CIF BNF
• Next by thread: Re: The CIF BNF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread