[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
To: ddlm-group <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
Sent: Friday, 16 February 2018, 3:53
Subject: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal, Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
Note that it would remain possible for a CIF data file to use hexadecimal, octal or binary representation by simply stating that an Integer type can be encoded in a CIF file in base 2, 8 or 16 using the suffixes '\b', '\o' or '\h' respectively in a non-delimited data value. This is in spirit the same as interpreting backslash escapes in text strings when finding the 'canonical' value.
Thoughts?
James.
_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- From: Simon Westrip <simonwestrip@btinternet.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:13:22 +0000 (UTC)
- DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s2048;t=1519038839; bh=jDny7wiV2WbZVNCi0ViLFy2XQblCmOfPGUuTcSU4s0A=;h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject;b=KyHdE/O2e4Ft6IGgc7k8QQ9ubNHqPohCI9ZhohRkuiDOzA9S13My2TXf2j2IO8NGFWMFlpkE4+8oRN9CF32FmopP/UZZTFJ0qyI/jSt0Tl+q+dSNig2I1qxUP1sElXwpGEIj8rhGByVb9LtY000rh9kojESDarqL/6jvlkew0i/3myNNb8IRtRZ1fc2EYQQbairAwtv9pdKP/xcgDLtkRFW13YuPvmY0LYDtWhoZ1X9XKkQ4I8bcS+Y6XSuw8UZ4aPOcaAILS44BdPOVqNtQcs0MSYorRRg29ZDasoA2j4VzULM+o1HqdDoe1VjMIwJmiCbN9QWEBNL6hdISEB8Afw==
- In-Reply-To: <CAM+dB2dN7PGp+ZTBHYaOqGgSKb0urGYsCcu2oLk8XhzU9WeDcQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2dN7PGp+ZTBHYaOqGgSKb0urGYsCcu2oLk8XhzU9WeDcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi James - I'd be inclined just to drop the types in DDLm.
Extending the semantics used for presenting numbers
seems like placing an unnecessary burden on CIF application developers
(obliged to look out for octal, hexadecimal, binary ...)
Cheers
Simon
From: James Hester <jamesrhester@gmail.com>
To: ddlm-group <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
Sent: Friday, 16 February 2018, 3:53
Subject: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal, Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
Dear DDLm group,
Octal, Hexadecimal and Binary are all separate data value types in the DDLm dictionary. As far as I can tell these are just alternative ways of representing an Integer type. I would therefore like to suggest that they are dropped from the list of possible value types. None of them are used in any of our accepted or draft DDLm dictionaries, nor can I think of any situation where a data file *must* choose a particular way of representing an Integer in order for information to be successfully transferred.--
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
_______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types (=?UTF-8?Q?Saulius_Gra=c5=beulis?=)
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Standardising inter-block linking
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- Prev by thread: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal, Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Removing Octal,Hexadecimal and Binary as DDLm types
- Index(es):