[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:29:46 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <279aad2a0911092218i401457b7vebe513e0870eba6f@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <4AEA2972.4070501@niehs.nih.gov><C71D9778.12362%nick@csse.uwa.edu.au><279aad2a0911081839l6be410f4udf47eb3b566e9765@mail.gmail.com><20091109075657.E52774@epsilon.pair.com><279aad2a0911092218i401457b7vebe513e0870eba6f@mail.gmail.com>
I am neutral on option 0 as long as we make a clear rule for both software writers and users to follow. Note that option 0 becomes moot as a practical matter if we restrict ourselves to just {}, but becomes a very real issue once [] becomes a delimiter. So so far the vote is: James and Herbert: 1 - 3 - 2 - 4 James: No on 0 Herbert: Neutral on 0 ===================================================== Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121 Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 +1-631-244-3035 yaya@dowling.edu ===================================================== On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, James Hester wrote: > 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 > ddlm-group@iucr.org > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group >
_______________________________________________ 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] CIF-2 changes (Nick Spadaccini)
- References:
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (Joe Krahn)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (Nick Spadaccini)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 versus extended ASCII
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 versus extended ASCII
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] CIF-2 changes
- Index(es):