[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Straw poll results
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Straw poll results
- From: Nick Spadaccini <nick@csse.uwa.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:24:31 +0800
- Authentication-Results: postfix;
- In-Reply-To: <279aad2a0910130827h34774cfey78af132620cf6f74@mail.gmail.com>
On 13/10/09 11:27 PM, "James Hester" <jamesrhester@gmail.com> wrote: > Here are the results of the straw poll. See the end of the email for > detailed vote counts, and note the request for a further vote on > certain issues. > > CONCLUSIONS > =========== > > 1. UTF8 will be supported. Not clear on asciified version or > binary. Therefore, please comment and vote on the following, given > that UTF8 will be included in the new standard: > > (a) UTF8 should be supported in standard form only (i.e. 'binary' > characters with values above 127 will appear in CIF files) > > (b) An asciified version only should be supported. An example would > be the syntax \uxxxx, where xxxx refers to the Unicode code point of > the character in hexadecimal notation. NB this is not strictly UTF8, > but simply a Unicode representation. > > My vote: 1.a > > 2. Termination of quoted strings on first occurence of quote delimiter > and restriction of character set for non-delimited strings: Approved, > but not clear whether to deprecate first or move immediately to > requirement. Upon long consideration of Brian's email and Herbert's > reservations, and two cups of tea, and some chocolate, I am happy to > change my votes to 1.2 and 2.3 (and perhaps call the new CIF syntax > 2.0 rather than 1.2), therefore I declare these proposals approved as > a requirement in the new standard. I'll write a separate email on > this. > > However: Brian and James want to require whitespace between tokens > outside compound expressions regardless of it now becoming strictly > unnecessary in several cases. Given that the above proposals have > been passed, please vote again on the following options: > > (a) Whitespace is not required between tokens unless tokens could not > otherwise be separated; writers are encouraged to pad between tokens > (b) Whitespace must always appear between tokens outside compound expressions > (c) Whitespace must always appear between tokens both in and outside > compound expressions > > My vote: 2.b > > Detailed vote summary > ===================== > > Issue1: Removing the requirement for a trailing whitespace after > quoted strings outside of bracketed constructs. > Options: 1.1. Preserve the current convention as is > 1.2. Terminate all quoted strings on the occurance of the > trailing quoted delimiter without consideration of the next character > 1.3 Deprecate rather than require 1.2 What does deprecate rather than require 1.2 mean? If a scientist asks, what does the formal language specification state concerning the absolute need for whitespace before and after a token, what is the answer? Please don't say we deprecate (definition: earnestly disapprove of) whitespace, that is just plain silly. In the specification a quoted string is terminated by the first occurrence of the matching quote (1.2), or it is terminated by a quote immediately followed by one or more whitespace (in which case you are actually voting for 1.1). Again (and again and again, how many times do I have to say this?) deprecation has to do with an implementation. What are we specifying? > 1.1: Nobody (Herbert prefers if 1.3 not an option) > 1.2: Brian (but whitespace required between tokens), Nick, Simon > 1.3: Herbert, James (but whitespace required between tokens) > > Difficult to determine any clear preference from John W., but he seems > happy to go along with the changes we are discussing so long as there > is a clear fallback position. > > Issue2: Restriction of the character set for non-delimited strings > outside of bracketed constructs > Options 2.1. Preserve the current convention as is > 2.2. Modify the current convention to deprecate use of > any characters other than a strictly limited set > of characters, adding a warning oon reads and > defaulting to add quote marks on write > 2.3. Modify the current convention to forbid the use of > any characters other than a strctly limited set > of characters, making it an error to read a non-delimited > string that does not comply even if the intention > can be inferred from context Same question, earnestly disapproving of a character set is not a specification. What will be specified for the language? Is the , allowed or not allowed in an unquoted string? > > 2.1: Nobody > 2.2: Herbert, James > 2.3: Nick, Simon, (John) > > UTF8: > > Do not use: Nobody > Use: Simon, Brian, John > Use, binary: Herbert, James > Use, asciified: Nick > > A clear preference for binary or ascii can't be gleaned from Brian and > Simon's and John's emails, so I've left them as simply 'Use'. > cheers Nick -------------------------------- Associate Professor N. Spadaccini, PhD School of Computer Science & Software Engineering The University of Western Australia t: +61 (0)8 6488 3452 35 Stirling Highway f: +61 (0)8 6488 1089 CRAWLEY, Perth, WA 6009 AUSTRALIA w3: www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~nick MBDP M002 CRICOS Provider Code: 00126G e: Nick.Spadaccini@uwa.edu.au _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Straw poll results (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Straw poll results (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] [THREAD 4] UTF8
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Straw poll results
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Straw poll results
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Straw poll results
- Index(es):