Discussion List Archives

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

Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

  • To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2 <cif2-encoding@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
  • From: James Hester <jamesrhester@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:38:27 +1000
  • In-Reply-To: <8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA5416659DED8C@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
  • References: <AANLkTilyJE2mCxprlBYaSkysu1OBjY7otWrXDWm3oOT9@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTikih0j6-vyLDPMOqcTkoiK545yE28y4fU9JTUa2@mail.gmail.com><20100623103310.GD15883@emerald.iucr.org><alpine.BSF.2.00.1006231033360.56372@epsilon.pair.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1006231406010.30894@epsilon.pair.com><a06240802c848414681ef@><381469.52475.qm@web87004.mail.ird.yahoo.com><a06240801c84949b70cb7@><AANLkTilZj2UEffRwmvCrgnVbxrGwmsoqb9S7tw31MWSo@mail.gmail.com><984921.99613.qm@web87011.mail.ird.yahoo.com><AANLkTimLmnpS-HHP9en-zwUDeVKtbHSUJa36tUCOlQtL@mail.gmail.com><826180.50656.qm@web87010.mail.ird.yahoo.com><563298.52532.qm@web87005.mail.ird.yahoo.com><520427.68014.qm@web87001.mail.ird.yahoo.com><a06240800c84ac1b696bf@><614241.93385.qm@web87016.mail.ird.yahoo.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1006251827270.70846@epsilon.pair.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166122952D@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><33483.93964.qm@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229533@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><AANLkTilqKa_vZJEmfjEtd_MzKhH1CijEIglJzWpFQrrC@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229542@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><AANLkTikTee4PicHKjnnbAdipegyELQ6UWLXz9Zm08aVL@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229552@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><AANLkTinZ4KNsnREOOU6sVFdGYR_aQHcjdWr_ko648NGm@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA5416659DED8C@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
Thanks John for a detailed response.

At the top of this email I will address this whole issue of optional
behaviour.  I was clearly too telegraphic in previous posts, as
Herbert thinks that optional whitespace counts as an optional feature,
so I go into some detail below.

By "optional features" I mean those aspects of the standard that are
not mandatory for both readers and writers, and in addition I am not
concerned with features that do not relate directly to the information
transferred, e.g. optional warnings.  For example, unless "optional
whitespace" means that the *reader* may throw a syntax error when
whitespace is encountered at some particular point where whitespace is
optional, I do not view optional whitespace as an optional feature -
it is only optional for the writer.  With this definition of "optional
feature" it follows logically that, if a standard has such "optional
features", not all standard-conformant files will be readable by all
standard-conformant readers.  This is as true of HTML, XML and CIF1 as
it is of CIF2.  Whatever the relevance of HTML and XML to CIF, the
existence of successful standards with optional features proves only
that a standard can achieve widespread acceptance while having
optional features - whether these optional features are a help or a
hindrance would require some detailed analysis.

So: any standard containing optional features requires the addition of
external information in order to resolve the choice of optional
features before successful information interchange can take place.

Into this situation we place software developers.  These are the
people who play a big role in deciding which optional parts of the
standard are used, as they are the ones that write the software that
attempts to read and write the files.   Developers will typically
choose to support optional features based on how likely they are to be
used, which depends in part on how likely they are perceived to be
implemented in other software.  This is a recursive, potentially
unstable situation, which will eventually resolve itself in one of
three ways:

(1) A "standard" subset of optional features develops and is
approximately always implemented in readers.  Special cases:
  (a) No optional features are implemented
  (b) All optional features are implemented
(2) A variety of "standard" subsets develop, dividing users into
different communities. These communities can't always read each
other's files without additional conversion software, but there is
little impetus to write this software, because if there were, the
developers would have included support for the missing options in the
first place.  The most obvious example of such communities would be
thosed based on options relating to natural languages, if those
communities do not care about accessibility of their files to
non-users of their language and encoding.
(3) A truly chaotic situation develops, with no discernable resolution
and a plethora of incompatible files and software.

Outcome 1 is the most desirable, as all files are now readable by all
readers, meaning no additional negotiation is necessary, just as if we
had mandated that set of optional features.  Outcome 2 is less
desirable, as more software needs to be written and the standard by
itself is not necessarily enough information to read a given file.
Outcome 3 is obviously pretty unwelcome, but unlikely as it would
require a lot of competing influences, which would eventually change
and allow resolution into (1) or (2).  Think HTML and Microsoft.

Now let us apply the above analysis to CIF: some are advocating not
exhaustively listing or mandating the possible CIF2 encodings (CIF1
did not list or mandate encoding either), leading to a range of
"optional features" as I have defined it above (where support for any
given encoding is a single "optional feature").  For CIF1, we had a
type 1 outcome (only ASCII encoding was supported and produced).

So: my understanding of the previous discussion is that, while we
agree that it would be ideal if everyone used only UTF8, some perceive
that the desire to use a different encoding will be sufficiently
strong that mandating UTF8 will be ineffective and/or inconvenient.
So, while I personally would advocate mandating UTF8, the other point
of view would have us allowing non UTF8 encoding but hoping that
everyone will eventually move to UTF8.

In which case I would like to suggest that we use network effects to
influence the recursive feedback loop experienced by programmers
described above, so that the community settles on UTF8 in the same way
as it has settled on ASCII for CIF1.  That is, we "load the dice" so
that other encodings are disfavoured.  Here are some ways to "load the

(1) Mandate UTF8 only.
(2) Make support for UTF8 mandatory in CIF processors
(3) Force non UTF8 files to jump through extra hoops (which I think is
necessary anyway)
(4) Educate programmers on the drawbacks of non UTF8 encodings and
strongly urge them not to support reading non UTF8 CIF files
(5) Strongly recommend that the IUCr, wwPDB, and other centralised
repositories reject non-UTF8-encoded CIF files
(6) Make available hyperlinked information on system tools for dealing
with UTF8 files on popular platforms, which could be used in error
messages produced by programs (see (4))

I would be interested in hearing comments on the acceptability of
these options from the rest of the group (I think we know how we all
feel about (1)!).

Now, returning to John's email: I will answer each of the points
inline, at the same time attempting to get all the attributions

(James) I had not fully appreciated that Scheme B is intended to be
applied only at the moment of transfer or archiving, and envisions
users normally saving files in their preferred encoding with no hash
codes or encoding hints required (I will call the inclusion of such
hints and hashes as 'decoration').

(John) "Envisions users normally [...]" is a bit stronger than my
position or the intended orientation of Scheme B.  "Accommodates"
would be my choice of wording.

(James now) No problem with that wording, my point is that such
undecorated files will be called CIF2 files and so are a target for
CIF2 software developers, thus "unloading" the dice away from UTF8 and
closer to encoding chaos.

(James)  A direct result of allowing undecorated files to reside on
disk is that CIF software producers will need to write software that
will function with arbitrary encodings with no decoration to help
them, as that is the form that users' files will be most often be in.

(John) The standard can do no more to prevent users from storing
undecorated CIFs than it can to prevent users from storing CIF text
encoded in ISO-8859-15, Shift-JIS or any other non-UTF-8 encoding.
More generally, all the standard can do is define the characteristics
of a conformant CIF -- it can never prevent CIF-like but
non-conformant files from being created, used, exchanged, or archived
as if they were conformant CIFs.  Regardless of the standard's
ultimate position on this issue, software authors will have to be
guided by practical considerations and by the real-world requirements
placed on their programs.  In particular, they will have to decide
whether to accept "CIF" input that in fact violates the standard in
various ways, and / or they will have to decide which optional CIF
behaviors they will support.  As such, I don't see a significant
distinction between the alternatives before us as regards the
difficulty, complexity, or requirements of CIF2 software.

(James now) I have described the way the standard works to restrict
encodings in the discussion at the top of this email.  Briefly, CIF
software developers develop programs that conform with the CIF2
standard.  If that standard says 'UTF8', they program for UTF8.  If
you want to work in ISO-8859-15 etc, you have to do extra work.

Working in favour of such extra work would be a compelling use case,
which I have yet to see (I note that the 'UTF8 only' standard posted
to ccp4-bb and pdb-l produced no comments).  My strong perception is
that any need for other encodings is overwhelmed by the utility of
settling on a single encoding, but that perception would need
confirmation from a proper survey of non-ASCII users.

So, no we can't stop people saving CIF-like files in other encodings,
but we can discourage it by creating significant barriers in terms of
software availability.  Just like we can't stop CIF1 users saving
files in JIS X 0208, but that doesn't happen at any level that causes
problems (if it happens at all, which I doubt).

(John) Furthermore, no formulation of CIF is inherently reliable or
unreliable, because reliability (in this sense) is a characteristic of
data transfer, not of data themselves.  Scheme B targets the
activities that require reliability assurance, and disregards those
that don't.  In a practical sense, this isn't any different from
scheme A, because it is only when the encoding is potentially
uncertain -- to wit, in the context of data transfer -- that either
scheme need be applied (see also below).  I suppose I would be willing
to make scheme B a general requirement of the CIF format, but I don't
see any advantage there over the current formulation.  The actual
behavior of people and the practical requirements on CIF software
would not appreciably change.

(James now) I would suggest that Scheme B does not target all
activites requiring reliability assurance, as it does not address the
situation where people use a mix of CIF-aware software and text tools
in a single encoding environment.

The real, significant change that occurs when you accept Scheme B is
that CIF files can now be in any encoding and undecorated.
Programmers are then likely to provide programs that might or might
not work with various encodings, and users feel justifiably that their
undecorated files should be supported.  The software barrier that was
encouraging UTF8-only has been removed, and the problem of mismatched
encodings that we have been trying to avoid becomes that much more
likely to occur.  Scheme B has very few teeth to enforce decoration at
the point of transfer, as the software at either end is now probably
happy with an undecorated file.  Requiring decoration as a condition
of being a CIF2 file means that software will tend to reject
undecorated files, thereby limiting the damage that would be caused by
open slather encoding.

(James)  Furthermore, given the ease with which files can be
transferred between users (email attachment, saved in shared,
network-mounted directory, drag and drop onto USB stick etc.) it is
unlikely that Scheme B or anything involving extra effort would be
applied unless the recipient demanded it.

(John) For hand-created or hand-edited CIFs, I agree.  CIFs
manipulated via a CIF2-compliant editor could be relied upon to
conform to scheme B, however, provided that is standardized.  But the
same applies to scheme A, given that few operating environments
default to UTF-8 for text.

(James now) That is my goal: that any CIF that passes through a
CIF-compliant program must be decorated before input and output (if
not UTF8).  What hand-edited, hand-created CIFs actually have in the
way of decoration doesn't bother me much, as these are very rare and
of no use unless they can be read into a CIF program, at which point
they should be rejected until properly decorated.  And I reiterate,
the process of applying decoration can be done interactively to
minimise the chances of incorrect assignment of encoding.

(James)  And given how many times that file might have changed hands
across borders and operating systems within a single group
collaboration, there would only be a qualified guarantee that the
character to binary mapping has not been mangled en route, making any
scheme applied subsequently rather pointless.

(John) That also does not distinguish among the alternatives before
us.  I appreciate the desire for an absolute guarantee of reliability,
but none is available.  Qualified guarantees are the best we can
achieve (and that's a technical assessment, not an aphorism).

(James now) Oh, but I believe it does distinguish, because if CIF
software reads only UTF8 (because that is what the standard says),
then the file will tend to be in UTF8 at all points in time, with
reduced possibilities for encoding errors.  I think it highly likely
that each group that handles a CIF will at some stage run it through
CIF-aware software, which means encoding mistakes are likely to be
caught much earlier.

(James) We would thus go from a situation where we had a single,
reliable and sometimes slightly inconvenient encoding (UTF8), to one
where a CIF processor should be prepared for any given CIF file to be
one of a wide range of encodings which need to be guessed.

(John) Under scheme A or the present draft text, we have "a single,
reliable [...] encoding" only in the sense that the standard
*specifies* that that encoding be used.  So far, however, I see little
will to produce or use processors that are restricted to UTF-8, and I
have every expectation that authors will continue to produce CIFs in
various encodings regardless of the standard's ultimate stance.  Yes,
it might be nice if everyone and every system converged on UTF-8 for
text encoding, but CIF2 cannot force that to happen, not even among

(James now) You see little will to do this: but as far as I can tell,
there is even less will not to do it.  Authors will not "continue" to
produce CIFs in various encodings, as they haven't started doing so
yet.  As I've said above, CIF2 can certainly, if not force, encourage
UTF8 adoption.  What's more, non-ASCII characters are only gradually
going to find their way into CIF2 files, as the dictionaries and large
scale adopters of CIF2 (the IUCr) start to allow non-ASCII characters
in names, and the users gradually adapt to this new way of doing
things.  I have no sense that CIF users will feel a strong desire to
use non UTF8 schemes, when they have been happy in an ASCII-only
regime up until now.  But I'm curious: on what basis are you saying
that there is little will to use processors that are restricted to

(John) In practice, then, we really have a situation where the
practical / useful CIF2 processor must be prepared to handle a variety
of encodings (details dependent on system requirements), which may
need to be guessed, with no standard mechanism for helping the
processor make that determination or for allowing it to check its
guess.  Scheme B improves that situation by standardizing a general
reliability assurance mechanism, which otherwise would be missing.  In
view of the practical situation, I see no down side at all.  A CIF
processor working with scheme B is *more* able, not less.

(James) I would much prefer a scheme which did not compromise
reliability in such a significant way.

(John) There is no such compromise, because in practice, we're not
starting from a reliable position.

(James now) I think your statement that our current position is not
reliable arises out of a perception that users are likely to use a
variety of encodings regardless of what the standard says.  I think
this danger is way overstated, but I'd like to see you expand on why
you think there is such a likelihood of multiple encodings being used

(James) My previous (somewhat clunky) attempts to adjust Scheme B were
directed at trying to force any file with the CIF2.0 magic number to
be either decorated or UTF-8, meaning that software has a reasonably
high confidence in file integrity.

An alternative way of thinking about this is that CIF files also act
as the mechanism of information transfer between software programs.
[... W]hen a separate program is asked to input that CIF, the
information has been transferred, even if that software is running on
the same computer.

(John) So in that sense, one could argue that Scheme B already applies
to all CIFs, its assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.  Honestly,
though, I don't think debating semantic details of terms such as "data
transfer" is useful because in practice, and independent of scheme A,
B, or Z, it is incumbent on the CIF receiver (/ reader / retriever) to
choose what form of reliability assurance to accept or demand, if any.

(James now) I was only debating semantic details in order to expose
the fact that data transfer occurs between programs, not just between
systems, and that therefore Scheme B should apply within a single
system, so therefore, all CIF2 files should be decorated.  As for who
should be demanding reliability assurance, the receiver may not be in
a position to demand some level of reliability if the file creator is
not in direct contact.  Again, we can build this reliability into the
standard and save the extra negotiation or loss of information that is
otherwise involved.

(James) Now, moving on to the detailed contours of Scheme B and
addressing the particular points that John and I have been discussing.
 My original criticisms are the ones preceded by numerals.

[(James now) I've deleted those points where we have reached
agreement.  Those points are:
(1) Restrict encodings to those for which the first line of a CIF file
provides unambiguous encoding for ASCII codepoints
(2) Put the hash value on the first line]

(James a long time ago) (4) Assumption that all recipients will be
able to handle all encodings

(John) There is no such assumption.  Rather, there is an
acknowledgement that some systems may be unable to handle some CIFs.
That is already the case with CIF1, and it is not completely resolved
by standardizing on UTF-8 (i.e. scheme A).

(James) There is no such thing as 'optional' for an information
interchange standard.  A file that conforms to the standard must be
readable by parsers written according to the standard. If reading a
standard-conformant file might fail or (worse) the file might be
misinterpreted, information cannot always reliably be exchanged using
this standard, so that optional behaviour needs to be either
discarded, or made mandatory. There is thus no point in including
optional behaviour in the standard. So: if the standard allows files
to be written in encoding XYZ, then all readers should be able to read
files written in encoding XYZ.  I view the CIF1 stance of allowing any
encoding as a mistake, but a benign one, as in the case of CIF1 ASCII
was so entrenched that it was the defacto standard for the characters
appearing in CIF1 files.  In short, we have to specify a limited set
of acceptable encodings.

(John) As Herb astutely observed, those assertions reflect a
fundamental source of our disagreement.  I think we can all agree that
a standard that permits conforming software to misinterpret conforming
data is undesirable.

Surely we can also agree that an information interchange standard does
not serve its purpose if it does not support information being
successfully interchanged.  It does not follow, however, that the
artifacts by which any two parties realize an information interchange
must be interpretable by all other conceivable parties, nor does it
follow that that would be a supremely advantageous characteristic if
it were achievable.  It also does not follow that recognizable failure
of any particular attempt at interchange must at all costs be avoided,
or that a data interchange standard must take no account of its usage

(James now) This is where we must make a policy decision: is a CIF2
file to be a universally understandable file?  I agree that excluding
optional behaviour is not an absolute requirement, but I also consider
that optional behaviour should not be introduced without solid
justification, given the real cost in interoperability and portability
of the standard.  You refer to two parties who wish to exchange
information: those parties are always free to agree on private
enhancements to the CIF2 standard (or to create their very own
protocol), if they are in contact.  I do not see why this use case
need concern us here.  Herbert can say to John 'I'm emailing you a
CIF2 file but encoded in UTF16'.  John has his extremely excellent
software which handles UTF16 and these two parties are happy.

John mentions a 'usage context'.  If the standard is to include some
account of usage context, then that context has to be specified
sufficiently for a CIF2 programmer to understand what aspects of that
context to consider, and not left open to misinterpretation.  Perhaps
you could enlarge on what particular context should be included?

(John) Optional and alternative behaviors are not fundamentally
incompatible with a data interchange standard, as XML and HTML
demonstrate.  Or consider the extreme variability of CIF text content:
whether a particular CIF is suitable for a particular purpose depends
intimately on exactly which data are present in it, and even to some
extent on which data names are used to present them, even though ALL
are optional as far as the format is concerned.  If I say 'This CIF is
unsuitable for my present purpose because it does not contain
_symmetry_space_group_name_H-M', that does not mean the CIF standard
is broken.  Yet, it is not qualitatively different for me to say 'This
CIF is unsuitable because it is encoded in CCSID 500' despite CIF2
(hypothetically) permitting arbitrary encodings.

(James now)  The difference is quantitative and qualitative.
Quantitative, because the number of CIF2 files that are unsuitable
because of missing tags will always be less than or equal to the
number of CIF2 files that are unsuitable because of a missing tag and
unknown encoding.  Thus, by reducing ambiguity at the lower levels of
the standard, we improve the utility at the higher levels.  The
difference is also qualitative, in that (a) if we have tags with
non-ASCII characters, they could conceivably be confused with other
tags if the encoding is not correct and so you will have a situation
where a file that is not suitable actually appears suitable, because
the desired tag appears. Likewise, the value taken by a tag may be

(James a long time ago) (iii) restrict possible encodings to
internationally recognised ones with well-specified Unicode mappings.
This addresses point (4)

(John) I don't see the need for this, and to some extent I think it
could be harmful.  For example, if Herb sees a use for a scheme of
this sort in conjunction with imgCIF (unknown at this point whether he
does), then he might want to be able to specify an encoding specific
to imgCIF, such as one that provides for multiple text segments, each
with its own character encoding.  To the extent that imgCIF is an
international standard, perhaps that could still satisfy the
restriction, but I don't think that was the intended meaning of
"internationally recognised".

(James now)  Indeed.  My intent with this specification was to ensure
that third parties would be able to recover the encoding. If imgCIF is
going to cause us to make such an open-ended specification, it is
probably a sign that imgCIF needs to be addressed separately.  For
example, should we think about redefining it as a container format,
with a CIF header and UTF16 body (but still part of the
"Crystallographic Information Framework")?

(John) As for "well-specified Unicode mappings", I think maybe I'm
missing something.  CIF text is already limited to Unicode characters,
and any encoding that can serve for a particular piece of CIF text
must map at least the characters actually present in the text.  What
encodings or scenarios would be excluded, then, by that aspect of this

(James) My intention was to make sure that not only the particular
user who created the file knew this mapping, but that the mapping was
publically available.  Certainly only Unicode encodable code points
will appear, but the recipient needs to be able to recover the mapping
from the file bytes to Unicode without relying on e.g. files that will
be supplied on request by someone whose email address no longer works.

(John) This issue is relevant only to the parties among whom a
particular CIF is exchanged.  The standard would not particularly
assist those parties by restricting the permitted encodings, because
they can safely ignore such restrictions if they mutually agree to do
so (whether statically or dynamically), and they (specifically, the
CIF originator) must anyway comply with them if no such agreement is
implicit or can be reached.

(James) Again, any two parties in current contact can send each other
files in whatever format and encoding they wish.  My concern is that
CIF software writers are not drawn into supporting obscure or adhoc

(John) B) Scheme B does not use quite the same language as scheme A
with respect to detectable encodings.  As a result, it supports
(without tagging or hashing) not just UTF-8, but also all UTF-16 and
UTF-32 variants.  This is intentional.

(James) I am concerned that the vast majority of users based in
English speaking countries (and many non English speaking countries)
will be quite annoyed if they have to deal with UTF-16/32 CIF2 files
that are no longer accessible to the simple ASCII-based tools and
software that they are used to.  Because of this, allowing undecorated
UTF16/32 would be far more disruptive than forcing people to use UTF8
only. Thus my stipulation on maintaining compatibility with ASCII for
undecorated files.

(John) Supporting UTF-16/32 without tagging or hashing is not a key
provision of scheme B, and I could live without it, but I don't think
that would significantly change the likelihood of a user unexpectedly
encountering undecorated UTF-16/32 CIFs.  It would change only whether
such files were technically CIF-conformant, which doesn't much matter
to the user on the spot.  In any case, it is not the lack of
decoration that is the basic problem here.

(James now)  Yes, that is true.  A decorated UTF16 file is just as
unreadable as an undecorated one in ASCII tools.  However, per my
comments at the start of this email, I think an extra bit of hoop
jumping for non UTF8 encoded files has the desirable property of
encouraging UTF8 use.

(John) C) Scheme B is not aimed at ensuring that every conceivable
receiver be able to interpret every scheme-B-compliant CIF.  Instead,
it provides receivers the ability to *judge* whether they can
interpret particular CIFs, and afterwards to *verify* that they have
done so correctly.  Ensuring that receivers can interpret CIFs is thus
a responsibility of the sender / archive maintainer, possibly in
cooperation with the receiver / retriever.

(James) As I've said before, I don't see the paradigm of live
negotiation between senders and receivers as very useful, as it fails
to account for CIFs being passed between different software (via
reading/writing to a file system), or CIFs where the creator is no
longer around, or technically unsophisticated senders where, for
example, the software has produced an undecorated CIF in some native
encoding and the sender has absolutely no idea why the receiver (if
they even have contact with the receiver!) can't read the file
properly.   I prefer to see the standard that we set as a substitute
for live negotiation, so leaving things up to the users is in that
sense an abrogation of our responsibility.

(John) That scenario will undoubtedly occur occasionally regardless of
the outcome of this discussion.  If it is our responsibility to avoid
it at all costs then we are doomed to fail in that regard.  Software
*will* under some circumstances produce undecorated, non-UTF-8 "CIFs"
because that is sometimes convenient, efficient, and appropriate for
the program's purpose.

I think, though, those comments reflect a bit of a misconception.  The
overall purpose of CIF supporting multiple encodings would be to allow
specific CIFs to be better adapted for specific purposes.  Such
purposes include, but are not limited to

 () exchanging data with general-purpose program(s) on the same system
 () exchanging data with crystallography program(s) on the same system
 () supporting performance or storage objectives of specific programs or systems
 () efficiently supporting problem or data domains in which Latin text
is a minority of the content (e.g. imgCIF)
 () storing data in a personal archive
 () exchanging data with known third parties
 () publishing data to a general audience

 *Few, if any, of those uses would be likely to involve live
negotiation.*  That's why I assigned primary responsibility for
selecting encodings to the entity providing the CIF.  I probably
should not even have mentioned cooperation of the receiver; I did so
more because it is conceivable than because it is likely.

(James now) OK, fair enough. My issues then with the paradigm of
provider-based encoding selection is that it only works where the
provider is capable of making this choice, and it puts that
responsibility on all providers, large and small.  Of course, I am
keen to construct a CIF ecology where providers always automatically
choose UTF8 as the "safe" choice.

(John) Under any scheme I can imagine, some CIFs will not be well
suited to some purposes.  I want to avoid the situation that *no*
conformant CIF can be well suited to some reasonable purposes.  I am
willing to forgo the result that *every* conformant CIF is suited to
certain other, also reasonable purposes.

(James now) Fair enough.  However, so far the only reasonable purpose
that I can see for which a UTF8 file would not be suitable is
exchanging data with general-purpose programs that do not cope with
UTF8, and it may well be that with a bit of research the list of such
programs would turn out to be rather short.

T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
cif2-encoding mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Council for Science (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ICSU Committee on Data. Member of ICSTI, the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

ICSU Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.