NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi all, Hmm, there are a few choices here, all with pros and cons. One could argue that "netcdf" is the file format and anything to do with CF could be a parameter (e.g. "netcdf;conventions=cf1.1"). This cleanly separates file format from convention. However, "geotiff" is regarded as a file format in its own right, even though it could be regarded as TIFF + geo conventions. This would argue for "cf-netcdf" as the MIME type. Thirdly, since CF is closely tied to NetCDF it could be argued that CF implies NetCDF, meaning that "cf" in itself could be a valid file type, but this isn't typical community usage.
I think this is the distinction for me, there is no such thing as a .cf file format whereas you can have a ".xhtml" file.
This is true. But there's no reason why there should not be a .cf file type (or equivalent). In fact I think this might be rather helpful - but that's probably another discussion. Many systems (especially web servers and browsers) map file extensions directly to MIME types and helper applications. Jon On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Dominic Lowe <d.lowe@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ethan, You state "that you can use to write XHTML", whereas I note you don't say "can use to write CF" ;-) I think this is the distinction for me, there is no such thing as a .cf file format whereas you can have a ".xhtml" file. I fully understand your reasoning though - there are clear parallels between XHTML and CF. There are also differences and it just depends which perspective you take. At the end of the day I think either (+ or -) would be fine as long as our clients/dispatchers can handle it. But my preference is for "-" :-)
galeon archives: