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
