[CF-metadata] Standard names for anomaly-type parameters

[Philip Bentley]

Hi Jon

On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 15:39 +0100, Jon Blower wrote:

> Also, what if someone wants to express a new anomaly that isn't in the
> standard name table?  If the anomaly is expressed in the standard name
> then they have to go through a procedure to standardize the name
> before they can use it "legally".  I bet a lot of people won't bother
> to do this.  If there were a more generic way of expressing anomalies
> then they could use this immediately.
> 

Our thoughts entirely. The temptation to skip round the standard names
issue and simply use long_names is, er, sorely tempting ;-)

Phil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20080403/08a0f3b4/attachment.html