[iaufwg] FITS panel recommendations; ready for review?

[Steve Allen]

On Fri 2007-07-13T15:56:00 -0400, Robert Hanisch hath writ:
> I wouldn't defend the practice either, but I think it is better to provide
> guidance on what should be done when duplicate keywords are found rather
> than to prohibit their existence.   I suppose change #5 to Section 3.7 would
> get around this, but it seems like making three left turns just to make one
> right turn.

In the case of the Keck FITS files the different instances of the same
keyword with a value have different datatypes in the different
occurrences of the keyword.  I don't think the FITS standard can help
here other than to basically say "oops" by including language
something like "The result is undefined.  Don't do that."

But I have to recuse myself because any statements on this issue from
me are akin to Beltway lobbyists who have something to sell in DC.

--
Steve Allen                 <sla at ucolick.org>                WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory        Natural Sciences II, Room 165    Lat  +36.99855
University of California    Voice: +1 831 459 3046           Lng -122.06015
Santa Cruz, CA 95064        http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/     Hgt +250 m