Re: [Jmol-users] JMOL and Wikipedia

[Egon W. <ego...@gm...>]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Brian Salter-Duke <b_...@bi...> wrote:
> On quality, I think that is a different and general concern. We try to
> not use poor quality images, so we would try to use only good quality
> Jmol data files. I am happy that we restrict the type of jmol files to a
> small number, perhaps initially only *.pdb files. Of course we would
> have to add file extensions for jmol files to the upload process anyway,
> so we would not need to add all possible file extensions.

PDB is not a good format for small molecules; CML would be much
better, e.g. by allowing embedding of important information regarding
identification of the structure, or adding info on who added that
image. Please be specific when you suggest file formats: there are two
main areas of interest here: protein (PDB is the de facto standard),
small molecules. In both cases, there are many alternative, and PDB as
format has, at least, lesser quality than other offerings.

I also really don't get the security concerns brought up... sorry, for
dropping in on this, but have been involved in talk several years ago
too, and if you want Jmol without JavaScript, that is no problem.
JavaScript as security problem regarding a Jmol extension for WP is a
non-issue. People have been using plain HTML for embedding Jmol in
various website for more than 10 years, and I have no clue why this
would not be a problem for WP.

Please explain.

Egon

-- 
Post-doc @ Uppsala University
http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/