[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far. .. .
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far. .. .
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:19:00 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229532@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
- References: <AANLkTiljuKDk9I-6GkQ_gnIPJRk8lv7JjHDARdi6tAwv@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTinas1mDzt9-U_pm0plfj3tvVHmQHbID96QXNQvH@mail.gmail.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229531@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><email@example.com><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA541661229532@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local>
Dear Colleagues, I urge placing James' summary on the ccp4-dev, ccp4bb and pdb-l lists and finding out what the community wants to do about this, rather than guessing. Regards, Herbert ===================================================== Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121 Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769 +1-631-244-3035 firstname.lastname@example.org ===================================================== On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Bollinger, John C wrote: > > > On Monday, June 28, 2010 7:02 PM, SIMON WESTRIP wrote: > >> John wrote: >> "The person or organization that wants to accept only UTF-8 (or perhaps other discernable encodings) in order to reduce the perceived or real likelihood of misidentified encodings is under any circumstances free to do so. The standard neither helps them by requiring UTF-8 alone, nor hinders them by permitting other encodings." >> >> I think that 'person or organization' is very likely to value what might hinder its users over what might hinder them. > > I don't doubt that's so, but NO ONE is helped by a formal constraint that they cannot rely upon being consistently obeyed in practice. > >> By requiring a single or inherently identifiable set of encodings and providing tools to implement them, >> I think we would be helping users far more than saying please specify your encoding as well as prepare your CIF > according to all the other restrictions of the standard and the dictionaries, when in many cases they would not be >> readily aware of the encoding they are using nor even consider understanding CIF >> as an important part of their work? I can only speak from experience - other's experience will probably differ. > > Nothing prevents IUCr, PDB, CCDC, Herb, James, or anyone else from providing a set of CIF tools that produces, for example, only UTF-8 output. None of the multi-encoding proposals obligate anyone to use or support the entire range of allowed encodings. > > > Regards, > > John > > Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer > _______________________________________________ > ddlm-group mailing list > email@example.com > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far. . (SIMON WESTRIP)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far. .. . (Bollinger, John C)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far. .. .
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far. .. .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Summary of encoding discussion so far