statement being included in the standard?
attributes can be used to manage encoding."
> Here is more detail on the use of CBFlib.
> don't know if they stayed with it.
> In other words, CBFlib on its own _is_ useful.
> detectors of all sizes produce imgCIF as the default.
> CBF as an input.
> for a pointless schism.
> simple, comprehensible standard for the files they work with as a whole.
> imgCIF can return to being imgNCIF.
> If we are to resolve this, then, as in 1998, we need a meeting or e-meeting.
> frame the issues in dispute and organize a wider meeting.
>>>> Thanks Herbert for providing the imgCIF perspective.
>>>> those that will come later.
>>> How about an e-meeting?
>> seem to be misunderstood more often than not.
>> Let me buy a web cam first!
>>> forms, esp. the hexdump form are very useful.
>> You are correct in interpreting what I mean by "non-CBF".
>> know only of rasmol, but you presumably know of many more.
>>>> a format like CBF more appropriate?
>>>> into the CIF sections of CBF?
>>> I don't understand this question, nor the assumptions behind it.
>> CBF2 only, rendering space-efficiency of imgCIF2 files irrelevant.
>> (anticipating your answers to my above questions).
>> What are your (Herbert's, anybody else's) thoughts on such a plan?
>>>> present a motivation and/or discussion of this work at some stage?
>>> a meeting or e-meeting, I can explain better.
>> of these plans at some stage.
>>>>> and merging in with HDF5.
>>>>> something relevant to NSLS-II.
>>>>>> background on why a container format for imgCIF is such a bad idea?
>>>>>> no record now remains.
>>>>>>> in 1998. �The handling of multiple images in a single file (e.g.
>>>>>>> the dictionary and not the framework.
>>>>>>> important role than the CIF format.
>>>>>>> able to reduce the data interchange software burdens a little.
>>>>>>> it, not one that makes it more complex than it needs to be.
>>>>>>> I suggest we need to meet and talk, either face-to-face, or by skype.