[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
RE: Draft JSON specification, round 2
- Subject: RE: Draft JSON specification, round 2
- From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:50:48 +0000
- Accept-Language: en-US
- authentication-results: iucr.org; dkim=none (message not signed)header.d=none;iucr.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=STJUDE.ORG;
- DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=SJCRH.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-stjude-org;h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;bh=fR1l0yhkZhazVU7lnNHZLxpXbOYNkm/r1iNVW4yNCCk=;b=MI2yTaQP3aBWWm0ttKZnrr6ZNh9tsttq97+NVESMrJaIuLO/ld94K4VAAuM1XmtCOKabnlXLOx16ZI19Liew57WgfPgl3v0EYPZIAoj3/u1fzmcn9MKJ+Q7cXxTykhOZWlfYF4ovgC64QtVclRbZVQYjP9kKUWjo+9ICHl7p6T8=
- In-Reply-To: <CACaHzQWevFLSnMY2omQ7rahMoHbeOc7xxT8g-iR=iSrHd5fEBw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2d4HcnH7PZRC4jYO8KLyNxs4pws_baT7WKi6vRiD2z1ow@mail.gmail.com><CAF_YUvURvhf+CkErvsCjNr=b=Nq2=FkM68Z_Tap3EsAzfArc+w@mail.gmail.com><CAM+dB2fCeZh_LdnvMsjfYzLyz8wLqwDErCZkKYJR8TVudkc6xA@mail.gmail.com><CAF_YUvXh=J5UVAm1YqFt8xe8DuRS2qC_-wHk-Ou1aNJuvEuOxQ@mail.gmail.com><CAM+dB2f6wLa0U8shrN5D6=B+u4tFWYPG9byXvA0FWf_9dWCGzQ@mail.gmail.com><CACaHzQWevFLSnMY2omQ7rahMoHbeOc7xxT8g-iR=iSrHd5fEBw@mail.gmail.com>
- spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
Sorry for being a bit late to this particular party, but if we want keys for objects that are siblings to data block objects, then it seems to me that the safest thing to do is to choose from among the many strings that cannot reasonably correspond to CIF data block names at all. One of the easiest ways to do that would be to choose keys with whitespace in them, such as "Meta Data". No liberties a processor might take in translating or interpreting alphabetic case can allow it to convert between such a string and a valid CIF data block name. John -----Original Message----- From: cif-developers [mailto:cif-developers-bounces@iucr.org] On Behalf Of Marcin Wojdyr Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 5:34 AM To: Forum for CIF software developers <cif-developers@iucr.org> Subject: Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2 On 20 April 2017 at 03:35, James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote: >> Come to think of it, all upper case keys could be non-cif keys since >> we specify all lower case for CIF keys. Are data names case >> sensitive? Thus, this could be >> >> META_DATA >> >> perhaps? >> >> > Ooh, nifty idea. Loosely speaking, datablock names are caseless (may > not canonically caseless match in Unicode speak) so we could stipulate > that all datablock names are lower case (or the Unicode equivalent). > Let's see what the rest of developers here think about this. I also like the idea of having all the keys lowercase in JSON. It will loose some (not essential) information, but having easy and fast access to blocks/frames/items is a huge advantage. (though I'd rather write it as METADATA without _) Marcin _______________________________________________ cif-developers mailing list cif-developers@iucr.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.iucr.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcif-developers&data=01%7C01%7CJohn.Bollinger%40stjude.org%7C0bb9fb8347364b1ec60108d487d8cbe8%7C22340fa892264871b677d3b3e377af72%7C0&sdata=UnTuZp65%2BGlNa%2BgrDOO3Ln9olJCcMWD2cS8s3G5SBbw%3D&reserved=0 ________________________________ Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer Consultation Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/consultationdisclaimer _______________________________________________cif-developers mailing listcif-developers@iucr.orghttp://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cif-developers
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2 (Robert Hanson)
- References:
- Draft JSON specification, round 2 (James Hester)
- Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2 (Robert Hanson)
- Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2 (James Hester)
- Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2 (Robert Hanson)
- Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2 (James Hester)
- Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2 (Marcin Wojdyr)
- Prev by Date: Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2
- Next by Date: RE: Treatment of Greek characters in CIF2
- Prev by thread: Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2
- Next by thread: Re: Draft JSON specification, round 2
- Index(es):