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

Re: CIF or NOT CIF, (or nothing)

• To: Multiple recipients of list <imgcif-l@bnl.gov>
• Subject: Re: CIF or NOT CIF, (or nothing)
• From: J.W.Campbell@dl.ac.uk (J.Campbell)
• Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 05:42:01 -0500 (EST)

In reply to Andy's 5 options...

1) Not very keen on ASCII encoding - would presumably increase file sizes.

2) Sounds plausible BUT the actual binary image files will not have any
   defining information within themselves - so back to square 1 or worse
   if the header file gets misplaced.

3) I do not really know what you mean - sorry.

4) In many ways this sounds the best, though would there be problems with
   ftp transfers?

5) Don't give up yet!

John

Andy's 5 options:
> 
>   1: CIF based, using encoding to convert binary data to ASCII
> 
>   2: CIF based "header file", using file pointers to point to binary file(s)
> 
>   3: CIF based "graphics" description of binary data
> 
>   4: Break with existing CIF to at least some extent, probably because a
>      file contains binary data. This could be "CIF" sections within a binary
>      files, or could be any other non-CIF format.
> 
>   5: Do nothing. 
> 

Reply to: [list | sender only]

• Prev by Date: Re: CIF or NOT CIF, (or nothing)
• Next by Date: Re: CIF or NOT CIF, (or nothing)
• Prev by thread: Re: CIF or NOT CIF, (or nothing)
• Next by thread: Re: CIF or NOT CIF, (or nothing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread