[iaufwg] IAUFWG review of the new draft FITS Standard

[Arnold Rots]

William Pence wrote:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Arnold,
> 
> Are you suggesting that we define a new binary table TFORMn data code 
> (e.g., 'T') for ISO 8601 date strings?  In this case, I presume the 
> repeat count value (as in TFORM1 = '19T') would give the width of the 
> single date value, in bytes, and would not mean that the column contains 
> a vector of 19 ISO data values.
> 
> If this is what is being proposed, then it sounds to me like a major 
> change to FITS that should be discussed as a separate proposal, rather 
> than including it as part of the current exercise to simply update and 
> clarify the wording of the FITS Standard.
> 
> Bill

Since people seem to have forgotten, here is what I wrote, five months ago:

  While I have restrained myself from bringing up the issue of
  recognizing unsigned integer data types during the earlier discussion,
  it struck me while reading through the comments that it might have
  been useful to add ISO-8601 datetime to the recognized data types.
  I *think* DATExxxx are the only keywords defined as a string where the
  format is prescribed. Adopting datetime as a data type in its own
  right would remove this anomaly.
  I would argue that this is no different from accepting T and F as
  representing a separate logical data type.
  What this opens up, of course, is the possibility of also allowing
  the datetime type to be used in table extensions.
  
  I hate bringing this kind of thing up at such a late date (or, rather,
  I'm sure people will hate me for it), and the amount of extra work
  involved may be more than we can afford to expend right now, but I
  think that the issue should at least be raised.

So, Bill is right, but it shouldn't have come as a surprise.

  - Arnold

> 
> Arnold Rots wrote:
> > I meant as a datatype, allowed in tables (rather than faking it as a string).
> > And, yes, ISO 8601 as restricted by the Y2K agreement.
> > 
> >   - Arnold
> > 
> > Steve Allen wrote:
> >> On Mon 2008-03-17T21:24:17 +0100, Andreas Wicenec hath writ:
> >>> Just saw your latest e-mail: Since we do have this Y2K agreement (I
> >>> forgot about this),
> >>> why shouldn't we put it into the standard?
> >> The reference to ISO is is implicit in the requirements of 4.4.2.1,
> >> but only explicit in the body of ref 10.
> >>
> 
> -- 
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Dr. William Pence                       William.Pence at nasa.gov
> NASA/GSFC Code 662       HEASARC        +1-301-286-4599 (voice)
> Greenbelt MD 20771                      +1-301-286-1684 (fax)
> 
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold H. Rots                                Chandra X-ray Science Center
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory                tel:  +1 617 496 7701
60 Garden Street, MS 67                              fax:  +1 617 495 7356
Cambridge, MA 02138                             arots at head.cfa.harvard.edu
USA                                     http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------