[iaufwg] Final FITS review comments

[Thierry Forveille]

William Pence a écrit :
  > 16.  from Mark Calabretta:
>> The new Standard should note any inconsistencies in syntax
>> between previous versions of the Standard, either as an
>> appendix or as footnotes throughout the document.
> 
> I am unsure how to respond to this suggestion.  No one seems to know of
> any specific cases of changed syntax that should be documented, and no
> one has volunteered to take on the task of searching through the
> documents to look for any such cases. I can't gauge how the FWG as a
> whole feels about this issue because there has been so little discussion
> so far.  A couple people (Allen and Shaw) have seemed to question
> whether the Standard is in fact the best place for this type of
> information.  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to put this in a
> separate FITS Implementor's Guide along with other practical guidelines.
> 
> I would like to hear how other members feel about this issue.  Is this
> issue important enough that it must be addressed immediately?  What
> is the scope of changes that should be documented, i.e., would we only
> include any changes that have occurred between versions 1.0 of the
> Standard and the current draft version 3.0, or are we also talking about
> any changes with respect to the original FITS Papers?  Is anyone willing
> to take on this task of making a detailed comparison of the different
> versions to look for changes?  Personally, I would have to say I don't
> really see the urgency in addressing this issue to cause a delay in
> voting on the new standard. But I would like to hear what others think.
> 
My feeling is that this feature would be nice to have in an ideal
world, but should not block a vote on the standard. Also, as you
note nobody has volunteered to perform the work, so one more reason
to not let this block us.