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

Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein
<yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>   I am coping with the rapid ebb and flow of what delimiters will be
> used for CIF2 by providing controls for both CIFtbx_4 and CBFlib_9
> to turn on or off sensitivity to (), [] and {} delimiters separately,
> so I can deal with whatever the final decision is by changing the
> defaults, ...

So I guess you have a proof of concept for whatever we decide on.

>   BUT we really do have to settle this.  Ignoring the comma, quote and
> colon issues, Since 2007 we have now gone through use of a of (), [], and
> {} as reserved delimiters, use of just () and {}, and use of just {}.  It
> is time to simply make a firm and final decision.

To be fair, it is only since August this year that there has been any flux.

>   We have dictionaries to write and code to implement.  I have already
> delayed delivery of software to deal with this, and I really don't like
> delaying delivery of software.
>   The use of the [] in CIF 1 dictionary category name is well-established.
> I prefer to minimize the impact on handling existing dictionaries in a
> CIF2 context and to stick strictly to {} as the only brackets in the
> set of reserved delimiters and to allow both () and [] in non-delimited
> strings and data names.  So let us have another straw vote:
>   Option 1:  {} will be reserved, but [] and () will not be reserved; or
>   Option 2:  {} and [] will be reserved, but () will not be reserved; or
>   Option 3:  {} and () will be reserved, but [] will not be reserved; or
>   Option 4:  {}, () and [] will all be reserved
> I suggest preferences voting noting if any are fatal to anyone.
> My preferences are in decreasing order:  1 then 3 and 2 then 4, but, as
> long as we settle this for once and for all, I can live with any of them.

Unfortunately your options exclude allowing brackets both inside
datanames/non-delimited strings and as list/table delimiters.  In
light of Nick's email I suggest an additional formulation:

0. Make it possible to detect missing whitespace after datanames and
non-delimited text strings if the following datavalue is a list or
table? (Yes/No)

If "Yes":  which of the above options do you prefer?
If "No": which of the above options would you prefer if the majority
prefer "Yes" as an answer to question 0?

I vote "No" (don't make it possible to detect whitespace) and
preferences same as Herbert (due to already existing square brackets
in datanames).

T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
ddlm-group mailing list

Reply to: [list | sender only]