[Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up

[James Hester]

Hi Simon: could you please give a list of options in order of preference?

Thanks,
James.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:13 AM, SIMON WESTRIP
<simonwestrip at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Faced with the options:
>
> 1. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII' recently
> posted here and to COMCIFS.
> 2. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII', together
> with Brian's *recommendations*
> 3. UTF8-only as in the original draft
> 4. UTF8 + UTF16
> 5. UTF8, UTF16 + "local"
>
> I have to vote for (4).
>
> When it comes down to it, I believe that the specification of a 'standard'
> should not be based on uncertainty,
> and as 'any encoding' presents uncertainty, it should not be in the
> standard.
>
> I might be accused of changing my position (I have recently expressed
> support for flexibilty and even a qualified
> acceptance of the 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII'), but
> part of the value of these discussions
> is to question your own views in the light of other's perspectives. Indeed,
> I have found these discussions
> extremely informative and am now in a far better position to handle the
> realities of introducing non-ASCII CIFs,
> whatever the final COMCIFS decision.
>
> Cheers
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Bollinger, John C" <John.Bollinger at STJUDE.ORG>
> To: Group for discussing encoding and content validation schemes for CIF2
> <cif2-encoding at iucr.org>
> Sent: Thursday, 23 September, 2010 15:02:25
> Subject: Re: [Cif2-encoding] How we wrap this up
>
> On Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:46 AM, SIMON WESTRIP wrote:
>
>>1. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII' recently
>> posted here and to COMCIFS.
>>2. Herbert's 'as for CIF1 proposal with UTF8 in place of ASCII', together
>> with Brian's *recommendations*
>>3. UTF8-only as in the original draft
>>4. UTF8 + UTF16
>>5. UTF8, UTF16 + "local"
>>
>>These can be broken down to:
>>
>>'any encoding' (1, 2, and 5)
>>
>>'specified encoding' (3 and 4)
>>
>>Note I put 5 in the 'any encoding' category as I think 'local' could be
>> interpretted as any encoding.
>
> I agree that 'local' could be interpreted as "any encoding", but I choose to
> view it as "context-dependent".  Thus a file that is CIF-conformant on one
> computer might not be CIF-conformant on another.  Some will find that
> unsatisfactory.  In my view, however, it is the best interpretation of
> CIF1's provisions; its purpose is thus to ensure that *all* well-formed CIF1
> files are also well-formed CIF2 files (a context-dependent question).  Lest
> I appear to overstate the case, I acknowledge that the UTF8-only and UTF-8 +
> UTF-16 proposals would have the result that a large majority of well-formed
> CIF1 files are also well-formed CIF2 files.  The variations of Herb’s
> proposal probably also make all well-formed CIF1 files well-formed CIF2
> files, but I disfavor them on different grounds (mostly that they are too
> open to differing interpretations).
>
> [...]
>
>>In either case, a degree of work will be required to accommodate user
>> practice and the legacy of CIF1.
>
> I think the entire question reduces to which accommodations for the CIF1
> legacy are assured by CIF2 vs. which will constitute non-standard
> extensions.  I don’t think that individual responses, from Chester for
> example, are likely to depend much on which option is adopted, but I do
> think the overall consistency of responses will be affected.  Thus I favor
> precision of the specification and coverage of the likely uses, in hope of
> achieving the greatest consistency of response.
>
> I doubt this has swayed anyone's opinion, so please consider it an advance
> explanation for my upcoming vote (inasmuch as I rely on James's previous
> assurance that voting rights in this context are not restricted to COMCIFS
> members).
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> John
> --
> John C. Bollinger, Ph.D.
> Department of Structural Biology
> St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
>
>
> Email Disclaimer:  www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
> _______________________________________________
> cif2-encoding mailing list
> cif2-encoding at iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding
>
> _______________________________________________
> cif2-encoding mailing list
> cif2-encoding at iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/cif2-encoding
>
>



-- 
T +61 (02) 9717 9907
F +61 (02) 9717 3145
M +61 (04) 0249 4148