[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 23:27:28 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=+pgWTQpN4_CkCgNigtO76x8g10wchpLYJpOmG@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTim3DMuAuKxY5rVxZ46Jdt+M+Eaw+V5pFo24U5FU@mail.gmail.com><alpine.BSF.2.00.1010272003380.69742@epsilon.pair.com><AANLkTi=+pgWTQpN4_CkCgNigtO76x8g10wchpLYJpOmG@mail.gmail.com>
Dear James, The line folding protocol is in section 26 of http://www.iucr.org/resources/cif/spec/version1.1/semantics I tried to get agreement on continuing this use of the backslash and that was firmly and explicitly rejected, effectively removing the entire line folding protocol, which depends on it. Even if we restore the use of the backslash, there has been a significant change in the termination of a text field. In CIF 1.1, text field can only end with <eol>; followed either by whitespace or the end of a file, so the existing line folding protocol allows ;\ this is an example of an embedded text field ;\ an embedded text field ;\ ; which is no longer valid under CIF2 because all quoted fields end on the first occurrence of their delimiter, and as stated in the new syntax document, "CIF2 keywords, data block headers, save frame headers, data names, and data values must all be separated from each other by whitespace. Whitespace not otherwise part of a CIF2 syntax element is significant only for this purpose. Reasoning: The CIF1 specification relies implicitly on the syntactic structure of the language to require whitespace separators between syntax elements. The CIF2 syntax no longer implicitly provides whitespace separators in some cases (notably, after most types of data values), therefore the requirement is now made explicit." So under CIF2, the use of the elide to shield the <eol>; is explcitly an error. It would be very nice to have the line folding back, either in the form of the use of the backslash, or by using the string concatenation operator. 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: > I would be happy to indicate the status of the line folding protocol under > the CIF2 draft when introducing the CIF2 draft to COMCIFS. Perhaps you > could write a few words in reply to this email giving a description of the > status of the line folding protocol under CIF2, as I'm not sure why > line-folding and CIF2 are incompatible. > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein > <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- > 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)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote
- Index(es):