[Cif2-encoding] Splitting of imgCIF and other sub-topics. .. .

[Herbert J. Bernstein]

I would suggest actually writing the utility you have in mind.

In practice, inasmuch as a CIF file looks like a text file, people
are very likely to just pick one up in any convenient text editor
change what they want to change and write an unidentified pseudo-cif
file back out.  Anything else needs to be provided to them in
a complete, platform portable, well-documented package they can
use easily in place of an editor that they use all the time for
everything else.

Please be practical -- CIF is a working tool, embedded in the IUCr
journal process flows, in many crystallographic applications, in
the PDB workflows, in Dectris detector software, etc.,. etc.

The more disruptive you make the transition from CIF1 to CIF2, the
more software and documentation you need to create to allow people
to make the transition actually happen.  We are essentially in
the same place we were in Osaka.  How do we break out of this
loop and move forward?

We need a realistic plan to get our job done and have a complete
specification with the necessary supporting software for CIF2 in place
and ready to demonstrate for Madrid, or I would suggest we
accept the failure of this effort, and start over.

   -- Herbert



At 10:32 PM +1000 9/13/10, James Hester wrote:
>The original concept was to edit the non UTF8 files in the text editor
>of choice, then run a simple checksumming application (that
>understands CIF2 syntax) to update the checksum.  This application
>would also pick out sections of text that would be displayed
>incorrectly in the wrong encoding, and ask the user to confirm that
>the text was displayed correctly.  Such an application could be made
>freely available by the IUCr.
>
>On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:22 PM, SIMON WESTRIP
><simonwestrip at btinternet.com> wrote:
>>  I questioned:
>>
>>  "For example, if mandatory, does that mean it becomes impossible to create a
>>  non-UTF8 CIF without using
>>  CIF2-aware software?"
>>
>>  In some respects this might not be a bad idea - i.e.restricting the use of
>>  non-UTF8 to CIF2-aware systems...
>>
>>  Simon (thinking aloud)
>>
>>  ________________________________
>>  From: SIMON WESTRIP <simonwestrip at btinternet.com>
>>  To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2
>>  <cif2-encoding at iucr.org>
>>  Sent: Monday, 13 September, 2010 11:05:12
>>  Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] Splitting of imgCIF and other sub-topics. .. .
>>
>>  Yes - I beleive that such a declaration should be mandatory for all non-UTF8
>>  CIF2 files,
>>  and agree that a supporting checksum mechanism would be very useful to
>>  CIF2-aware
>>  programs. Until I've revisited the checksum scheme, I can not say that the
>>  checksum should be mandatory too.
>>  For example, if mandatory, does that mean it becomes impossible to create a
>>  non-UTF8 CIF without using
>>  CIF2-aware software?
>>
>>  I need to review the discussions on checksums and indeed the various forms
>>  that such a declaration might take,
>>  but I do beleive in the principle that it should be mandatory for all
>>  'stand-alone' non-UTF8 CIF2 files.
>>  If a CIF is packaged in a container, then it will be the job of non-CIF
>>  software to retreive it from the container
>>  and deliver it in its original form. So a non-UTF8 CIF packaged in a
>>  non-UTF8 container (or even a UTF8 container)
>>  should still carry its non-UTF8 declaration.
>>
>>  Cheers
>>
>>  Simon
>>
>>  ________________________________
>>  From: James Hester <jamesrhester at gmail.com>
>>  To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2
>>  <cif2-encoding at iucr.org>
>>  Sent: Monday, 13 September, 2010 6:24:42
>>  Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] Splitting of imgCIF and other sub-topics. .. .
>>
>>  Hi Simon: the issue with such an encoding declaration is that it is
>>  not supported by generic text tools, and so would not be automatically
>  > inserted, updated or respected when creating, editing (ie open in one
>>  encoding, save in another) or transcoding a CIF2 file.  This means it
>>  has no status beyond a hint that could cause as many problems as it
>>  solves. Such a declaration becomes more robust if accompanied by the
>>  checksum that John B suggested.  The checksum gives some guarantee
>>  that the encoding has been checked by a CIF-aware program.
>>
>>  If you are proposing that such a declaration and checksum be mandatory
>>  for all non-UTF8 CIF2 files (not only during transfer), I agree with
>>  you that this would be acceptable.
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>cif2-encoding mailing list
>cif2-encoding at iucr.org
>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding


-- 
=====================================================
  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 at dowling.edu
=====================================================