[iaufwg] approval of the 'FOREIGN' extension convention

[Doug Tody]

Lucio -

I agree that the purpose of registering FITS conventions is primarily
to document existing practice, however it seems fine if the authors of
the convention want to make minor changes or updates when this is done,
particularly if the convention is still in use.  The authors can judge
the impact if any on existing implementations.  If there is any concern
it might be useful be useful to note such revisions in an appendix.

In this case the document is a revision of the original design
specification, which probably explains the "over documentation" you
refer to.  Since a convention like this is in part a view into the
past, it may be better to avoid extensive changes to the document,
as even the authors might well disagree now with the decisions which
were made in the past, which reflect a different time.

 	- Doug


On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, William Pence wrote:
>
>> A revised document that describes this convention (in MS Word and PDF
>> formats) has been placed on the FITS registry web site at
>> http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/fits_registry.html.
>
>> Please review this document for yourself, and let me know if you have
>> any further comments or objections about this convention;
>
> Surely we cannot have any objection about the convention, as the purpose
> of the registry is to track a convention which is : (a) in use ; (b)
> adequately documented.  I have however the following comments on the
> document :
>
> - there are parts, like the entire section 4, or the explanatory
>   text to FG_COMP. which are probably "over-documentation". I mean,
>   they look like design notes, not usage notes.
>
>   Also I'm slightly confused by the usage of past, present and future
>   tenses. I assumed that the FOREIGN convention was defined and
>   implemented long ago for "its own purposes" and then "frozen" (was it a
>   wrong impression ?), so it looks strange to "reserve" a keyword for
>   future use, or to write section 4 as requirements for something to be
>   written.
>
> - I have not retained a copy of the original document, and I can't
>   remember if keyword FG_MTYPE was in there. If it was not, it would
>   be strange to add it now. If it was, it seems strange to make
>   reference to a MIME type, when probably this concept did not exist
>   when the convention was first defined. Sort of "a posteriori history
>   editing" ...
>
>   But I might have understood the time frame wrongly.
>
> - very minor : probably the 1-80 alignment "ruler" in section 2 is
>   unnecessary or redundant
>
> None of the above comments precludes the acceptance of the convention.
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lucio Chiappetti - INAF/IASF - via Bassini 15 - I-20133 Milano (Italy)
> For more info : http://www.iasf-milano.inaf.it/~lucio/personal.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> iaufwg mailing list
> iaufwg at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/iaufwg
>