Validation of _atom_site_frac_*: Range outside of [0,1)? I have the following cif file

loop_
_atom_site_label
_atom_site_type_symbol
_atom_site_fract_x
_atom_site_fract_y
_atom_site_fract_z
...
Al2 Al -0.35936(1) -0.08768(9) -0.24188(8)
Al3 Al -0.27044(1) -0.35380(9) -0.13044(8)
F1 F -0.5320(2) -0.2015(2) -0.3794(2)
F2 F -0.3800(2) -0.2437(2) -0.1891(2)
F3 F -0.0350(2) 0.0944(2) 0.1528(2)
...
N3 N 1.2782(3) 0.7260(3) 0.3726(3)
...
C2 C 1.0165(4) 0.6764(4) 0.2267(3)
C3 C 1.1053(4) 0.6806(4) 0.3576(3)
...
H1 H 1.015(4) 0.603(4) 0.147(3)
...
H6 H 1.068(6) 0.773(6) 0.220(5)
H7 H 1.100(5) 0.761(5) 0.441(4)
...
H10 H 1.303(5) 0.653(4) 0.319(4)
...
H12 H 1.070(5) 0.574(5) 0.364(4)
...
H16 H 1.328(6) 0.749(6) 0.471(5)
H17 H 1.313(5) 0.801(4) 0.348(4)


Of interest is the fact that many of these "fractions" of the cell length are greater than 1, and many are negative. To my sensibilities these atoms lie outside the unit cell.

Should the IUCr definition form CIF dictionary of _atom_site_fract_x state that the permitted range is 0.0 -&gt; 1.0, but forgot?

Should these atoms be discarded, should they be mod'd into the unit cell, or should they be interpreted in some other manner?
I completely agree with @porphyrin comment. This is an example of crystal data which formatting does not entirely meet IUCr requirements, that's all. This happens a lot, and in most cases it's no big deal. This particular set of coordinates is just not uniform within a single cell. Different crystallographic software uses different means to "reassemble" atoms "correctly" and write changes to *.cif, e.g. Olex2 uses Standardise function for that: