[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2 <cif2-encoding@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- From: James Hester <jamesrhester@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:53:29 +1000
- In-Reply-To: <80062.82001.qm@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
- References: <AANLkTi=hmKNFMgaeMqt69=sG6dOmxZRUrffB1khjF+mZ@mail.gmail.com><63870.31508.qm@web87006.mail.ird.yahoo.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA5416659DEDDC@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><80062.82001.qm@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Hi Simon: could you please give a list of options in order of preference? Thanks, James. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:13 AM, SIMON WESTRIP <simonwestrip@btinternet.com> wrote: > Faced with the options: > > 1. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII' recently > posted here and to COMCIFS. > 2. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII', together > with Brian's *recommendations* > 3. UTF8-only as in the original draft > 4. UTF8 + UTF16 > 5. UTF8, UTF16 + "local" > > I have to vote for (4). > > When it comes down to it, I believe that the specification of a 'standard' > should not be based on uncertainty, > and as 'any encoding' presents uncertainty, it should not be in the > standard. > > I might be accused of changing my position (I have recently expressed > support for flexibilty and even a qualified > acceptance of the 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII'), but > part of the value of these discussions > is to question your own views in the light of other's perspectives. Indeed, > I have found these discussions > extremely informative and am now in a far better position to handle the > realities of introducing non-ASCII CIFs, > whatever the final COMCIFS decision. > > Cheers > > Simon > > > > ________________________________ > From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger@STJUDE.ORG> > To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2 > <cif2-encoding@iucr.org> > Sent: Thursday, 23 September, 2010 15:02:25 > Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up > > On Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:46 AM, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: > >>1. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII' recently >> posted here and to COMCIFS. >>2. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII', together >> with Brian's *recommendations* >>3. UTF8-only as in the original draft >>4. UTF8 + UTF16 >>5. UTF8, UTF16 + "local" >> >>These can be broken down to: >> >>'any encoding' (1, 2, and 5) >> >>'specified encoding' (3 and 4) >> >>Note I put 5 in the 'any encoding' category as I think 'local' could be >> interpretted as any encoding. > > I agree that 'local' could be interpreted as "any encoding", but I choose to > view it as "context-dependent". Thus a file that is CIF-conformant on one > computer might not be CIF-conformant on another. Some will find that > unsatisfactory. In my view, however, it is the best interpretation of > CIF1's provisions; its purpose is thus to ensure that *all* well-formed CIF1 > files are also well-formed CIF2 files (a context-dependent question). Lest > I appear to overstate the case, I acknowledge that the UTF8-only and UTF-8 + > UTF-16 proposals would have the result that a large majority of well-formed > CIF1 files are also well-formed CIF2 files. The variations of Herb’s > proposal probably also make all well-formed CIF1 files well-formed CIF2 > files, but I disfavor them on different grounds (mostly that they are too > open to differing interpretations). > > [...] > >>In either case, a degree of work will be required to accommodate user >> practice and the legacy of CIF1. > > I think the entire question reduces to which accommodations for the CIF1 > legacy are assured by CIF2 vs. which will constitute non-standard > extensions. I don’t think that individual responses, from Chester for > example, are likely to depend much on which option is adopted, but I do > think the overall consistency of responses will be affected. Thus I favor > precision of the specification and coverage of the likely uses, in hope of > achieving the greatest consistency of response. > > I doubt this has swayed anyone's opinion, so please consider it an advance > explanation for my upcoming vote (inasmuch as I rely on James's previous > assurance that voting rights in this context are not restricted to COMCIFS > members). > > > Best Regards, > > John > -- > John C. Bollinger, Ph.D. > Department of Structural Biology > St. Jude Children's Research Hospital > > > Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer > _______________________________________________ > 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:
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up (SIMON WESTRIP)
- References:
- [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up (James Hester)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Prev by Date: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- Next by Date: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- Prev by thread: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- Next by thread: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
- Index(es):