[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <[email protected]>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:02:15 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]>
Done. -- 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 [email protected] ===================================================== On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, James Hester wrote: > As I am not a subscriber to any of these lists, perhaps somebody who is a subscriber could handle > posting an announcement and relaying back to this group the salient points in any ensuing > discussion?� I've included below a slightly edited text of the original annoucement to the > cif-developers list as a possible announcement text. > > James > ========================== > > Dear CIF users, > As some of you may be aware, a new CIF dictionary framework is under > development. This framework consists of an updated CIF syntax > (CIF2), a new set of dictionary attributes (DDLm), and a > > machine-readable language for describing algorithmic relationships > between datanames (dREL). The working group for developing this new > framework has come up with a final draft for the CIF2 syntax > component, which is available at > > http://www.iucr.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/41426/cif2_syntax_changes_jrh20100705.pdf > We are now seeking feedback from the community on this proposed new > > syntax standard. Please note that this CIF2 standard is designed to > coexist with the CIF1 standard (which it closely resembles), rather > than to replace it. > The discussions surrounding the CIF2 specification are archived at > > http://www.iucr.org/__data/iucr/lists/ddlm-group/ . > Some highlights of the the proposed CIF2 syntax: > * A list datavalue is introduced: lists are enclosed by square > > brackets, e.g. [1 2 3 4] or [[1 'x'] 3 ['y' 5 ['pqr' 7] 8 ]]. > List-valued data items are vital for economically expressing matrix > and vector relationships in dREL algorithms. > * A table datavalue is introduced, enclosed by curly braces, e.g. > > {"colour":"red" "size":"really big"}. Table datastructures allow > tabulated values (e.g. f' values) to be transparently accessed in dREL > algorithms. > * Both lists and tables are recursive, that is, lists and tables can > > contain other lists and tables > * Multi-line strings may now be delimited using triple quotes (""") or > triple single quotes ('''), as well as the CIF1.1 <newline><semicolon> > > delimiter. > * Single-quote delimited strings and double-quote delimited strings > may not contain instances of the delimiter character. This differs > from the CIF1.1 standard, which allowed instances of the delimiting > > character if the next character was not whitespace. > * CIF2 files are in UTF8 encoding. Note that ASCII is a proper subset of UTF8. > The DDLm working group would welcome any feedback you may have on this > specification, whether through open discussion on this list or by > > contacting members of the working group (see the online discussion > archive for names of the participants). > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote: > Even though I do not agree with many of the restrictions in this document, I urge > starting discussion of these changes on the various community-wide > discussion lists. �I suggest announcements to pdb-l, ccp4bb and ccp4-dev > lists. > > � �-- 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 > � � � � � � � � [email protected] > ===================================================== > > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, James Hester wrote: > > Brian has now posted the document.� You can find it at: > http://www.iucr.org/resources/cif/spec/cif-2-development > > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM, James Hester <[email protected]> wrote: > � � �I am happy to proceed as Brian suggests.� As far actually preparing a draft > goes, on May 7 John B kindly > � � �provided me with an editable version of the original draft specification with > those suggested changes of > � � �his that were uncontroversial already included.� I have updated that draft > making the following specific > � � �changes: > > � � �1. Change the 2048-byte limit to a 2048-character limit > � � �2. Incorporate XML-type newline handling > � � �3. Refer to UTF-8 as the designated encoding for files conformant to the > specification > � � �4. State that U+FEFF is not part of the allowed character set (ie. would be > everywhere a syntax error).� I > � � �include this as the voting on this point, such as it was, gave a slight > majority to option 2(a) over option > � � �2(c)(ii). > � � �5. Disallow Unicode non-characters.� I have *not* dealt with the issue of > disallowing non-printing > � � �characters.� As the draft currently stands, non-printing characters are > acceptable.� > > � � �The updated draft is in Brian's hands, and I'm hoping he will post it to the > IUCr website shortly for your > � � �comment. > > � � �James. > > � � �On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Brian McMahon <[email protected]> wrote: > � � � � � �Colleagues > > � � � � � �Like Buridan's ass we are starving to death between the equally > � � � � � �enticing mound of hay that is UTF-8 and the smorgasbord of mixed > � � � � � �vegetables offered by multiple encodings. > > � � � � � �I suggest that this group complete a *draft* CIF2 specification > � � � � � �that describes (if necessary) specific character allusions in > � � � � � �terms of a canonical UTF-8 encoding, and states that UTF-8 is the > � � � � � �designated encoding for files conformant to the specification. > > � � � � � �Post the completed draft in the first instance to the cif-developers > � � � � � �list (since that is supposed to the the most relevant target audience), > � � � � � �but certainly to other lists at the same time if folk think that would > � � � � � �be productive. By all means accompany the release with a commentary on > � � � � � �the difficulties we have faced over the encoding issue; by all means > � � � � � �implement a survey and analyse the results to assess community demand > � � � � � �for an upward revision of the draft - but let us give people something > � � � � � �concrete to begin with, and challenge them actively to protest if the > � � � � � �proposal will impede their work. > > � � � � � �Note that this proposal doesn't necessarily reflect a personal > � � � � � �preference for a single mandatory encoding - I still cannot > � � � � � �decide which I "prefer". But if the suggested draft is published, > � � � � � �I will not vote against it unless I suddenly see clearly a real > � � � � � �problem that it would throw up in the way of any applications I > � � � � � �would envisage writing. I would hope "the community" would respond > � � � � � �in similar vein, so that stated objections would both represent real > � � � � � �difficulties and help to define the environments giving rise to these > � � � � � �real difficulties. > > � � � � � �Best wishes > � � � � � �Brian > � � � � � �_______________________________________________ > � � � � � �ddlm-group mailing list > � � � � � �[email protected] > � � � � � �http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > > > > -- > T +61 (02) 9717 9907 > F +61 (02) 9717 3145 > M +61 (04) 0249 4148 > > > > > -- > T +61 (02) 9717 9907 > F +61 (02) 9717 3145 > M +61 (04) 0249 4148 > > > _______________________________________________ > ddlm-group mailing list > [email protected] > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group > > > > > -- > T +61 (02) 9717 9907 > F +61 (02) 9717 3145 > M +61 (04) 0249 4148 > >
_______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list [email protected] http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (James Hester)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] options/text vs binary/end-of-line. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Latest draft specification
- Next by thread: [ddlm-group] On process
- Index(es):