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

Re: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion

Dear James,

   I believe you have correctly summarized the situation with respect
to this informal discussion group, but with due respect, I am
very uncomfortable with that view with respect to COMCIFS itself,
which is a formal IUCr body with a specific charge with respect to
the maintenance of the CIF standard.  I believed and still believe
that Ralf's original proposal better serves the long term purpose
of development of the CIF standard than does proposal F.

   Certainly, it would be desirable to find a consensus position within
COMCIFS.  Perhaps some version of SIMON's proposal will end up
being that consensus, but it does not seem appropriate to limit the
discussion within COMCIFS to just a yea-or-nay on what this very
different, informal body has decided.  In the past, even with
formally established DWG and DMG discussions, we have allowed
full and open discussion at the COMCIFS level.  Why can Ralf's
proposal not be discussed in COMCIFS?

   With all due respect to the time and effort that this group has
given to this discussion, Ralf's proposal was raised in COMCIFS,
has my support, and has _not_ been properly discussed within
COMCIFS.  In terms of proprieties, it seems strange
having this body block discussion within COMCIFS and to
somehow insist on the substitution of proposal F for Ralf's
proposal.  Perhaps it will turn out in the end that COMCIFS
will prefer proposal F to Ralf's proposal.  Perhaps it will
turn out in the end that COMCIFS will prefer Ralf's proposal
to proposal F.  Perhaps something different will happen.  We
won't know until and unless the matter is brought back to
COMCIFS and discussed there, especially because, earlier in this
discussion, a majority of COMCIFS voting members expressed support
for Ralf's proposal.

   The sooner we start, the sooner we will be done.

   Regards,
      Herbert


At 11:30 AM +1100 2/21/11, James Hester wrote:
>Hi Herbert,
>
>The point of the process I have been pursuing here is to find an elide
>proposal that has the support of everybody.  As part of that process
>we indicated our preferences among all the proposals on the table,
>including the Python proposal.  As a result, proposal F was found to
>be acceptable to all members.  Proposal F is therefore being put
>forward for a formal vote on the basis that it will have unanimous
>support at COMCIFS.
>
>It therefore is *not* appropriate to give special status to the Python
>proposal by requesting an additional formal COMCIFS vote on it, unless
>we are also going to reintroduce the other 6 or 7 proposals for a
>formal vote.  That would then duplicate the process we've just been
>through, which would be pointless.
>
>I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
>
>James.
>
>On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein
><yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com> wrote:
>>  Dear James,
>>
>>   I think it would be more appropriate to put Ralf's original
>>  proposal as well as F  before COMCIFS.  As I have stated
>>  several times, I prefer Ralf's original proposal to F.
>>  While either is sufficient to the limited purpose, I think
>>  full Python compatability for the treble quote construct
>>  makes the most sense long term.
>>
>>   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 Wed, 16 Feb 2011, James Hester wrote:
>>
>>>  I believe that proposal F has the most support in this group and among
>>>  the voting COMCIFS members.  I reach this conclusion by assuming that
>>>  Ralf will prefer F and Brian and myself prefer F'.
>>>
>>>  I will shortly post a draft of the proposed change for technical
>  >> comment prior to requesting a COMCIFS vote.
>>>
>>>  James
>>>
>>>  On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:36 AM, John Westbrook <jwest@rcsb.rutgers.edu>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I concur with Herbert and opt for the option F of those under
>>>>  consideration.
>>>>
>>>>  I would appreciate an example of how to embed a triple quoted text
>>>>  section
>>>>  verbatim within a triple quoted section.   This is an issue for
>>>>  dictionary
>>>>  examples.  Does the proposal include both """ and ''' so that the string
>>>>  """'''my verbatim text'''""" is treated as '''my verbatim text'''?
>>>>
>>>>  John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 1/30/11 9:00 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  If the choice is only between F and F', I vote for F.
>>>>>
>>>>>  To clarify:
>>>>>
>>>>>  James' F' proposal was:
>>>>>
>>>>>  "The datavalue is obtained from the triple-quoted string in two steps:
>  >>>> (1) All instances of<backslash><eol>  are removed from the string
>>>>>  where the<backslash>  is not preceded by another<backslash>
>>>>>  (2) All other instances of<backslash><eol>  are replaced with<eol>
>>>>>
>>>>>  "This means that a sequence of n backslashes followed by newline is
>>>>>  replaced by a sequence of n-1 backslashes followed by newline, except
>>>>>  if there is one backslash before the newline, in which case both
>>>>>  newline and backslash are removed.  Triple quote sequences are elided
>>>>>  by inserting a<backslash><eol>  sequence between<delimiter>
>>>>>  characters to break up the triple delimiter sequence.  Note also that
>>>>>  backslash has no special meaning if not in a sequence finishing with
>>>>>  <eol>."
>>>>>
>>>>>  Simon's F proposal was
>>>>>
>>>>>  "If you're looking to base CIF extensions on established mechanisms,
>>>>>  why not adopt
>>>>>  the minimal \(newline) and \\ escape sequences, which in essence are
>>>>>  the same as
>>>>>  the established CIF line-folding protocol (just dropping the initial
>>>>>  \ following the opening
>>>>>  delimiter and formalising the protocol as an inherent part of the
>>>>>  spec). Afterall, I beleive you
>>>>>  have already been using it, or at least interpreted it, as a means to
>>>>>  escape 'semicolon delimiters' within
>>>>>  semicolon-delimited values (I seem to recall discussions that
>>>>>  identified an issue with the published 'trip tests'
>>>>>  relating to line folding)."
>>>>>
>>>>>  Under Simon's F proposal
>>>>>
>>>>>  """\\\
>>>>>  """
>>>>>
>>>>>  would mean one backslash (no trailing new line)
>>>>>
>>>>>  and
>>>>>
>>>>>  """\\
>>>>>  """
>>>>>
>>>>>  would mean one backslash followed by a newline
>>>>>
>>>>>  and
>>>>>
>>>>>  """\\
>>>>>
>>>>>  """
>>>>>
>>>>>  would mean one backslash followed by two newlines
>>>>>
>>>>>  while under James' F'
>>>>>
>>>>>  """\\\
>>>>>  """
>>>>>
>>>>>  would mean two backslashes (no trailing newline)
>>>>>
>>>>>  and
>>>>>
>>>>>  """\\
>>>>>  """
>>>>>
>>>>>  would mean one backslash (no trailing newline)
>>>>>
>>>>>  and
>>>>>
>>>>>  """\\
>>>>>
>>>>>  """
>>>>>
>>>>>  would mean one backslash followed by a newline
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  While either proposal could, of course, be implemented, to me,
>>>>>  Simon's proposal is seems complete and more consistent with
>>>>>  common programming practice in handling backslash elides
>>>>>
>>>>>  I agree with James that it is time to make a choice and move
>>>>>  on.  I just hope, if we cannot follow complete Python
>>>>>  practice, we at least take F, the proposal that is more
>>>>>  consistent with Python practice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  At 7:57 AM -0500 1/30/11, Frances C. Bernstein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:40:58 +1100
>>>>>>  From: James Hester<jamesrhester@gmail.com>
>>>>>>  Reply-To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries
>>>>>>       <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>>>>>>  To: ddlm-group<ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>>>>>>  Subject: [ddlm-group] Wrapping up the elide discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Dear DDLm-ers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  This latest round of discussion started as an attempt to find
>>>>>>  consensus on an elide system for CIF2 triple-quoted strings.  I have
>>>>>>  asked everybody to contribute their preferences, and now that John W
>>>>>>  and Ralf have replied to me off-list regarding their preferences for
>>>>>>  elides, we are in a position to read the tea-leaves and determine a
>  >>>>> consensus solution.  I can report that Ralf, while preferring the full
>>>>>>  Python approach (proposal P) will accept a solution that allows
>>>>>>  arbitrary strings to be included in a CIF file.  John W prefers a
>>>>>>  solution involving minimal changes to current syntax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  So our top preferences are as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Herbert: P, otherwise F with conditions
>>>>>>  Brian: F' and E, P least preferable
>>>>>>  James: F' and F, P unacceptable
>>>>>>  Ralf: P best, A,B,E,F,F' OK
>>>>>>  John W: A, B or F' (my interpretation of minimal changes - John feel
>>>>>>  free to say otherwise)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  It appears that all but Herbert would be prepared to vote for F', and
>>>>>>  even Herbert is prepared to consider F.  No other proposal reaches a
>>>>>>  similar level of acceptance among voting members (and I note that
>  >>>>> non-voting members are also strongly in the F/F' camp).  I would
>>>>>>  therefore like to focus discussion on F' and F as the two choices most
>>>>>>  likely to succeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  The single point in favour of F' as opposed to F is that the sequence
>>>>>>  <backslash><backslash>  has no meaning, which makes it simpler to
>>>>>>  include backslash-rich text (eg LaTeX or RTF).  This continues to be
>>>>>>  of particular concern among our journal colleagues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  The single point that some consider to be in favour of F relative to
>>>>>>  F' is that it is a proper subset of Python syntax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  If no consensus can be achieved following a small period for comment
>>>>>>  within this group, I propose voting between F or F', followed by a
>>>>>>  formal vote at COMCIFS level to accept the resulting elide system as
>>>>>>  an amendment to the current CIF2 standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  James.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>  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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>  ******************************************************************
>>>>    John Westbrook, Ph.D.
>>>>    Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
>>>>    Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
>>>>    610 Taylor Road
>>>>    Piscataway, NJ 08854-8087
>>>>    e-mail: jwest@rcsb.rutgers.edu
>>>>    Ph:  (732) 445-4290  Fax: (732) 445-4320
>>>>  ******************************************************************
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  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
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  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


-- 
=====================================================
  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
=====================================================
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group

Reply to: [list | sender only]