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

Re: [ddlm-group] Result of concatenation operator vote. .. .

Hi John,

You are perfectly correct in your assessment of what the CIF1.1 standard states.  I interpret it identically to you, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one.

James.

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Bollinger, John C <John.Bollinger@stjude.org> wrote:

On Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:48 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>
>Let me make this absolutely clear:
>
>;\
>
>does not violate the CIF1.1 syntax.  It violates an incorrect
>description of the CIF1.1 syntax.  This is about as silly as saying
>the "would that it were the case" violates English syntax because
>Microsoft word has a grammer checker that does not know about the
>subjunctive.

I suppose, then, that I am at a loss as to where to find a correct description of the CIF 1.1 syntax.  The spec currently available online at iucr.org agrees with IT vol. G.:

1) as ITG puts it, "A text field delimited by the <eol>; digraph may not include a semicolon at the start of a line of text as part of its value."  (International Tables vol. G (2005), Section 2.2.7.1.4, numbered paragraph (18).)

2) The formal grammars presented in both places do not permit a semicolon to appear at the beginning of a line of text inside a text field.  According to them, the first <eol>; digraph following the opening delimiter can only parse as the closing delimiter.

3) The explanations of both versions of the formal grammar repeat the same restriction on lines inside text fields: "[...] the first character cannot be a semicolon." (ITG 2.2.7.3, numbered paragraph (49))

The specifications available to me are explicit, consistent, repetitive, and clear on this point.  Furthermore, both versions of the specification say

4) Tokens are separated by whitespace (ITG 2.2.3, third paragraph), and

5) "For a semicolon-delimited text string, failure to provide trailing white space is an error."  (ITG 2.2.7.3, numbered paragraph (56))


Do you have a more authoritative reference than ITG?  Or official errata that alter these provisions?  Or an authoritative supplemental specification that changes them? Where can I find a correct specification?


Thanks,

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




Email Disclaimer:  www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
_______________________________________________
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]