NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi all, Can someone describe a scenario where having the version information (e.g., netcdf3 or netcdf4) somewhere in the mime type would make a difference for a client? If one is using the latest netCDF libraries, they should be able to deal with either. If one has an older client using an older version of the library, then presumably the client application would not be aware of mime-types and would not know what netcdf4 means anysay. If the client is doing a protocol negotiation, e.g., WCS, it would seem that the describeCoverage interaction would be where the netcdf3 - netcdf4 distinction would be important so the client would know whether it really wants to do the getCoverage at all. I'm struggling a bit to visualize a use case where the client would make use of the version information in the mime-type. -- Ben On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Little, Chris < chris.little@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Ben, Dominic, > > There was a similar discussion in the WMO format group (IPET-DRC) with > Simon Elliott, EUMETSAT, concerning the WMO file naming convention. > > We took the approach that the format should be specified as just NetCDF > (actually 'nc') rather than nc3 or nc4; GRIB (grb) rather than grb1 or grb2; > BUFR (bfr) rather than bfr1,2,3,4.... > > The argument was that current (monolithic) applications 'know' what version > of a format they support and can behave appropriately. > > The suggestion for separate Mime types, rather than a single parameterised > type, makes sense when the majority of applications are Mime aware and are > programmed to do the correct negotiation at the HTTP level, rather than > within their application environment. > > HTH, Chris > > Chris Little > OGC Meteorology & Oceanography Domain Working Group > > International Telecoms & Projects > Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > Tel: +44(0)1392 886278 Fax: +44(0)1392 885681 Mobile: +44(0)7753 880514 > E-mail: chris.little@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cf-netcdf-1.0.swg-bounces+chris.little= > metoffice.gov.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: > cf-netcdf-1.0.swg-bounces+chris.little= > metoffice.gov.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dominic Lowe > Sent: 14 October 2011 09:55 > To: galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; CF-NetCDF-1.0.SWG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg] [galeon] CF-netCDF SWG Session > Summary:Sept 2011 TC Meeting > > > > Hi all, > > On 13/10/11 18:06, jgallagher@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > +1 for x-netcdf with an optional conventions attribute > > Just to note that the x- prefix is for mimetypes that are not registered > with IANA. So if we are talking about what to register we should be talking > about application/netcdf or application/netcdf-3 (or 4) without the x-. > > My preference would be to make a distinction between NetCDF3 and NetCDF4 > filetypes as they require different tools to read them (or at least the > tools must be linked to different libraries). > Some clients might wish to express a preference in the HTTP Accept header > about which format they get back for a particular resource (if there is an > option). > > You could extend this argument to the conventions but that might be getting > impractical - I agree with the use of optional parameters there, although > not sure how much they are used in practice for mime-type negotiation? > > Regards, > > Dom > > > > > -- > Scanned by iCritical. > _______________________________________________ > CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg mailing list > CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-netcdf-1.0.swg > > _______________________________________________ > galeon mailing list > galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > For list information, to unsubscribe, visit: > http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/ >
galeon archives: