[iaufwg] INHERIT convention

[Mark Calabretta]

On Tue 2007/04/10 09:12:05 MST, "Dick Shaw" wrote
in a message to: iaufwg at nrao.edu

>I have to admit that I don't understand what you are asking the WG to do. We 
>agreed some months back to support the idea of a registry of FITS 
conventions;
>as I understood it, the main idea was to provide a clearing house of 
>information about FITS usage in the community. It was not, as I recall, 
>established to be a filter for conventions that have been in any way blessed 
>by the IAUFWG. Also, the existing rules for submitting a convention to the

That was also my understanding, i.e. that we were only required to
validate the adequacy of the documentation, not the adequacy of the
convention itself, that being the essential difference between a
convention and a standard.

Thus, if a significant body of data has been written in the guise of
"FITS" then any convention it uses should be documented.

If the convention violates the standard, whether unwittingly or not,
then that should be noted.

If it is likely to cause problems for general FITS interpreters then
that should also be noted.

While technically INHERIT may not violate the FITS standard, it must
also be understood that the FITS standard was not written as a piece
of loophole-free legislation.  It seems to me that INHERIT exploits a
loophole in the standard that will cause difficulties for general
FITS readers.  That should be noted.

Cheers, Mark