another iMesh / fields issue we may want to consider.

[Mark Shephard]

At the boot camp there was extensive discussion on the issue of where 
mesh shape information and coordinate information goes. There was 
general consensus that if we were starting at square one all of this 
would be in fields. However, because where iMesh is already, that what 
"is in iMesh" will remain there, but that fields will be able to fully 
support all mesh shape and coordinate information.

The item I wanted to mention here is that there was a couple of side 
comments on the "higher order node stuff" including, if I recall 
correctly, Tim asking if what we had defined could be revisited. With 
all the other stuff we were discussing at the boot camp we did not go 
any deeper into that and I was wondering if we should. I know that Carl 
and Luo had worked pretty hard on getting something into iMesh for 
higher order nodes that attempted to address the concerns of Tim and 
SCOREC. However, I am not sure how much of that was implemented and/or 
how happy people were with the compromise.

If the above is the situation with respect to this issue, the question I 
would ask is as follows: Should we consider having iMesh support just 
the coordinate information originally defined and have what we do in the 
fields stuff deal with all the additional possibilities?

Mark