[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: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:22:09 +1000
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]><[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54166122952D@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><[email protected]><[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229542@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229552@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA5416659DED8C@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]>

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
<[email protected]> 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
> � � � � � � � � [email protected]
> =====================================================
>
> 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
>> <[email protected]> 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
>>> � � � � � � � � �[email protected]
>>> =====================================================
>>>
>> --
>> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
>> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
>> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>> _______________________________________________
>> cif2-encoding mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding
>
> _______________________________________________
> cif2-encoding mailing list
> [email protected]
> 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
[email protected]
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Cif2-encoding] [ddlm-group] options/text vsbinary/end-of-line . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (Bollinger, John C)

• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread