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

Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .

• To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .
• From: "Bollinger, John C" <[email protected]>
• Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 07:50:44 -0500
• Accept-Language: en-US
• acceptlanguage: en-US
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]>

I, too, think James’s is an excellent idea.  Simon is right that adopting direct expression of Unicode (or any on-ASCII) characters in CIF is a fundamental change with many impacts and implications.  I look forward to James's summary.

John


On Friday, June 25, 2010 7:26 AM, SIMON WESTRIP wrote:

>I think this is a very good idea.
>
>The more we discuss this issue, the more I realize just how fundamental this proposed change is.

[...]

[In response to
From: James Hester <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 25 June, 2010 3:47:22 ]

>>I don't think we are quite going around in circles; but it is very
>>time-consuming exploring every point that is made to determine its
>>value and relevance.  Such methodical work can be done in a more
>>considered fashion by email, or even better with a wiki page.  To that
>>end, I plan to collect together a summary of all the points of view
>>that have been expressed so far, as a basis for further discussion.

[...]


--
John C. Bollinger, Ph.D.
Department of Structural Biology
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital




Email Disclaimer:  www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
_______________________________________________ddlm-group mailing [email protected]http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• References:
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. . (James Hester)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. . (James Hester)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. . (James Hester)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. . (James Hester)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. . (James Hester)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. . (Brian McMahon)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. . (Herbert J. Bernstein)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .... . (SIMON WESTRIP)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .... .. . (James Hester)
  • Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .... .. . (SIMON WESTRIP)

• Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .... .. .
• Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .... .. .
• Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .... .. .
• Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .... .. .
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread