Charlie et al, There are unresolved issues for _Unsigned and type equivalence. I request progress on the numeric types, and deal with the other issues separately.
-------------------------- Current CF 1.8 draft (currently unchanged from CF 1.7): 2.2. Data Types The netCDF data types char, byte, short, int, float or real, and double are all acceptable. The char type is not intended for numeric data. One byte numeric data should be stored using the byte data type. All integer types are treated by the netCDF interface as signed. It is possible to treat the byte type as unsigned by using the NUG convention of indicating the unsigned range using the valid_min, valid_max, or valid_range attributes. [Second paragraph on strings, not to be changed] ------------------------- Here is my alternate proposal with almost minimal changes from the current version. I hope the new subtitles will aid future discussions: 2.2. Data Types The netCDF data types char, byte, unsigned byte, short, unsigned short, int, unsigned int, int64, unsigned int64, float or real, and double are all acceptable. The char type is not intended for numeric data. One byte numeric data should be stored using the byte or unsigned byte data types. 2.2.1 Unsigned Integers It is possible to treat the byte type as unsigned by using the NUG convention of indicating the unsigned range using the valid_min, valid_max, or valid_range attributes. 2.2.2 Character Strings [Former paragraph on strings, unchanged] Comments are welcome. --Dave On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Charlie Zender <zen...@uci.edu> wrote: > If there is strong opposition to replacing the valid_* method in > CF <= 1.7 with the _Unsigned method in CF 1.8 then please speak-up. <snip>
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata