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

Re: CIF 2.0 syntax proposal for retaining backwards CIF 1.xcompatibility. .

I have not been on COMCIFS for many years, but as long as I get the e-mails, I am not going to withhold my 2¢ ($0.02 without unicode). 

Managing a database or codebase is a tough enough task without the problems of people creating new new incompatible formats. If it is really going to make CIF2 better to break the old format, then I reluctantly will ceed to that, but the idea of of creating a bridging format (CIF1.2) that permits simple interconversion with CIF2 is going to save a lot of problems and may even encourage the eventual adoption of CIF2. I strongly encourage that. 


On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Bollinger, John C wrote:

The fundamental question Saulius raises is whether a new, backwards-incompatible version of CIF is relevant or desirable.  Are the costs of dropping backwards compatibility too high for the benefits we hope to gain?  From a higher perspective, those costs may include some or all of the following:

- Loss of developer good will
- Lack of community acceptance
- Technical issues at various levels arising from confusing one format with the other
- User confusion

Brian H. Toby, Ph.D.                            office: 630-252-5488
Senior Physicist/Section Head for Scientific Software
Advanced Photon Source
9700 S. Cass Ave, Bldg. 401/B4192            work cell: 630-327-8426     
Argonne National Laboratory        
Argonne, IL 60439-4856         e-mail: brian dot toby at anl dot gov 
"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders... We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories...  All this we can do. All this we will do."

comcifs mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]