[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
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: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:22:09 +1000
- In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009022351260.52468@epsilon.pair.com>
- References: <AANLkTilyJE2mCxprlBYaSkysu1OBjY7otWrXDWm3oOT9@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1006251827270.70846@epsilon.pair.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166122952D@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><33483.93964.qm@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com><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><AANLkTintziXhwVCEFD0yUtTDo9KG8ut=oL4OgmkjmEBe@mail.gmail.com><639601.73559.qm@web87008.mail.ird.yahoo.com><AANLkTi=tzw3gqS1Hn199QMXPd1eY7Jf1Zxf0tnaz3ggF@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1008260723260.11865@epsilon.pair.com><AANLkTinMxJ7MgFoyXhf519FTGwGnFRTMbRKhL4dWLcSF@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1009022351260.52468@epsilon.pair.com>
I agree that CIF1 is not *defined* as ASCII-only, and I have no wish to push for any redefinition. I am stating that CIF1 is used by the community *as if* it were ASCII-only. When speculating about the community response to CIF2, the actual community response to the CIF1 standard is a perfectly reasonable starting point. Are you suggesting that a CIF1 application that accepts only ASCII encoding is not standards conformant? Because all that I am asserting is that useful CIF1 programs that support non-ASCII encodings are either rare or non-existent, despite being allowed by the standard. I see no hint of non-standards-conforming programs in this description. On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote: > This sounds like circular reasoning, using non-standard-conforming > applications as the definition of CIF1 and encouraging the creation > of more non-standard-conforming software. If CIF1 is to be redefined, > then the proposed redefinition should be clearly stated and > proposed to the community or COMCIFS is failing in its primary > responsibility. Until some sort of a new CIF1 ASCII-only-based > definition is put forward, discussed and accepted, I don't think it is > appropriate to call that CIF1. > > > > ===================================================== > 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 Fri, 3 Sep 2010, James Hester wrote: > >> Herbert, you will note that I carefully wrote "de-facto" ASCII, by >> which I mean that virtually, if not all, software for doing "useful >> work" with CIF, such as structural display programs, syntax checkers, >> refinement programs etc. read and write ASCII only. So while you can >> produce an EBCDIC or UTF16 encoded CIF1 file and proudly proclaim that >> it is CIF1 conformant, good luck in your quest to do useful work with >> it: you won't be able to input it as a starting model in any >> crystallographic packages, CheckCIF will complain, you won't be able >> to display the structure in all those nice programs...so in practice >> you are restricted to ASCII. As an additional and far more >> significant restriction, regardless of your CIF1 encoding, you must >> use only characters appearing in the ASCII character set in your CIF >> file. >> >> My point being that UTF8-only CIF2 is *less* restrictive than the >> successful CIF1 standard, because more code points are available, with >> the same range of encoding schemes (i.e. effectively *one* encoding >> only). >> >> If the only non-UTF8 use case will be imgCIF (that would appear to be >> the only non-ASCII use case for CIF1), we need to discuss this >> explicitly. >> >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein >> <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote: >>> >>> Um, but CIF1 is _not_ ascii-only. It is text in any acceptable local >>> encoding. >>> >>> ===================================================== >>> 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 >>> ===================================================== >>> >> -- >> T +61 (02) 9717 9907 >> F +61 (02) 9717 3145 >> M +61 (04) 0249 4148 >> _______________________________________________ >> cif2-encoding mailing list >> cif2-encoding@iucr.org >> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding > > _______________________________________________ > cif2-encoding mailing list > cif2-encoding@iucr.org > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding > > -- T +61 (02) 9717 9907 F +61 (02) 9717 3145 M +61 (04) 0249 4148 _______________________________________________ cif2-encoding mailing list cif2-encoding@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vsbinary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vsbinary/end-of-line . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
- Next by Date: Re: [Cif2-encoding] Splitting of imgCIF and other sub-topics
- Prev by thread: Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
- Next by thread: Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vsbinary/end-of-line . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
- Index(es):