[iaufwg] approval of the 'FOREIGN' extension convention

[Doug Tody]

I think our main point here is to document existing conventions, already
in use, which are not standards.  The main point made earlier in regard to
the FOREIGN extension, was that if we had it all to do over again today,
we might have done something somewhat different, and is is some years
later.  Hence to make extensive changes to the specification would in 
effect mean we are creating a new convention.  That might be useful, but
that is not what the convention in question is; it is an older convention,
currently in use (maybe we should just put a date on these?).  - Doug


On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Mark Calabretta wrote:

> On Fri 2007/02/02 12:15:14 CDT, William Pence wrote
> in a message to: IAU-FWG <iaufwg at nrao.edu>
>
> Bill,
>
>> investing a lot more effort.  The original authors of this convention
>> don't have much motivation to try to clarify the issues you raised
>> (partly because this convention is not used very much) and even if they
>> did, they may not agree on the best solution.   Even with these
>
> I thought the idea was that the documentation was to be checked for
> correctness and completeness.  But now you appear to be saying that
> deficiencies are not worth rectifying.  So what is the point of putting
> these documents up for discussion?
>
> Cheers, Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> iaufwg mailing list
> iaufwg at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/iaufwg
>