[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: Backus-Naur descriptions for STAR and CIF
- Subject: Re: Backus-Naur descriptions for STAR and CIF
- From: Brian McMahon <bm@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:56:04 +0100 (BST)
Nick, John Couple of quick thoughts as I leave... I'll review the CIF BNF in detail on the plane. > > Hence for CIF data files - as originally envisaged - the save_ and global_ > > restrictions should apply; and Nick's BNF is erroneous. > > I am happy to update the CIF BNF accordingly, if you give me the go ahead > Brian. If I read you correctly the DDL1 based dictionaries will follow the > same BNF except that one can explicitly enumerate the allowed datanames. OK Nick, please delete the <global_block> and its dependent entries. I am not sure about enumerating the allowed datanames in dictionary files - I'd say not, unless it helps in building validators mechanically. > > What about designating the end of looped data with "stop_"? > > It is provided for within the BNF but not mandatory. Therefore its > presence or otherwise still makes for a consistent CIF. Hmm - vcif certainly chokes on "stop_" in a CIF. Nick, can you discuss this with Syd Hall? I suspect that many existing CIF applications, written by crystallographers who have only read the Acta paper, would break if they hit a stop_. > English > prose is expressive but unfortunately easily open to misinterpretation. As amply demonstrated here :-) These discussions are very useful in identifying misinterpretations and points for clarification that will find their way into the FAQ and the web documentation tree when I get the chance. Best wishes Brian
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Prev by Date: Re: Backus-Naur descriptions for STAR and CIF
- Next by Date: RE: Backus-Naur descriptions for STAR and CIF
- Prev by thread: Re: Backus-Naur descriptions for STAR and CIF
- Next by thread: RE: Backus-Naur descriptions for STAR and CIF
- Index(es):