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

Re: [Cif2-encoding] Revised Motion

On Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:40 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>   James and I had a good e-meeting and came up with the following
>revised wording.  If anybody objects to this motion, please speak
>up now.

With apologies, I object.  This proposal has exactly the same problem that options (1) and (2) did: it does not define "text file".  It is worse in this case, however, because the problem cannot be fixed merely by adding Herbert's definition (or mine).  In most environments that definition does not encompass UTF-8 encoded text containing non-ASCII characters, so the recommendation to use UTF-8 implies some other, ill-defined definition.

I am quite surprised that the result presented is so different from James's recent compromise proposal, which seemed poised to serve as the basis for a consensus result.  Perhaps a viable solution would be to include a definition of "text file" derived from that proposal.


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

Reply to: [list | sender only]