[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:09:34 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim3DMuAuKxY5rVxZ46Jdt+M+Eaw+V5pFo24U5FU@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTim3DMuAuKxY5rVxZ46Jdt+M+Eaw+V5pFo24U5FU@mail.gmail.com>
Dear James, I don't mind if the approval of CIF2 has priority if the debate on that ends before debate on the concatenation operator, but imasmuch as either the concatenation operator or some other replacement for the line folding protocol is necessary before CIF2 can become a full replacement for CIF1, I would suggest that the matter be brought to COMCIFS at the same time and we see what happens. I would also like to bring the issue of how we transition imgCIF before COMCIFS. That is anther area where CIF2 does not yet provide support. 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 yaya@dowling.edu ===================================================== On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, James Hester wrote: > My count is 2 in favour, 4 against, with Simon (whose vote doesn't appear to have come in) > potentially making that 3 in favour and 4 against. These are not entirely convincing numbers > for either side. However, although the proponents of the concatenation operator are free to > address COMCIFS on this question, a replay of this vote within COMCIFS would lead to at least 3 > opposed and at least one in favour, with Nick's opposition making it (at best) a 4-2 vote > against. So, I suggest that at this point we delay any further consideration of concatenation > until COMCIFS has approved CIF2. > > In a subsequent email I will therefore put the current CIF2 spec to a DDLm group vote, and > assuming it passes will present it to COMCIFS for final approval. > -- > 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
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (James Hester)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: [ddlm-group] Vote on accepting CIF2 draft document
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on accepting CIF2 draft document
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- Index(es):