[iaufwg] FITS Registry Proposal

[Mark Calabretta]

On Thu 2006/03/23 10:46:05 BST, Lucio Chiappetti wrote
in a message to: IAU-FWG <iaufwg at nrao.edu>

>I also defined for BeppoSAX my own "XAS" format which is not FITS (native 
>binary representation, binary keywords) but mappable to it (concepts of 
>header keywords, binary tables)
>
>Or ESO has a format called "short FITS" which is not FITS.

Dear Lucio,

The point about RPFITS is that a naive user can't tell that it's not
FITS simply by looking at it.  It has all the superficial hallmarks of
FITS with conventional looking HDUs etc, but FITS readers would baulk
at it because of the non-standard blocksize and FP format thus leaving
the user in a quandry.  The first card in an RPFITS file says
SIMPLE = F, a clear warning, and the second has FORMAT = RPFITS (note
syntax error), thus affording a bewildered user the possibility of
searching for the string 'RPFITS' in the registry whereupon all *should*
be revealed.

If your formats share these characteristics and they have been used for
archiving data then I'd say it would also be a good idea to record their
existence in the registry.  However, if they are not FITS and don't look
like FITS, or if they do look like FITS but have only had restricted
usage then don't bother!

Regards, Mark