From iaufwg-request Wed May 4 03:49:51 1994 Received: by fits.cv.nrao.edu (4.1/DDN-DLB/1.5) id AA29174; Wed, 4 May 94 03:49:51 EDT Return-Path: Message-Id: <9405040749.AA18484@ns2.hq.eso.org> To: iaufwg@fits.CV.NRAO.EDU Subject: Reminder!!! vote on IMAGE and Blocking Date: Wed, 04 May 94 09:49:37 +0200 From: pgrosbol@eso.org Sender: iaufwg-request@fits.CV.NRAO.EDU Dear IAU-FWG members, Just to remind you that the deadline for voting on the IMAGE and Blocking proposals is Friday, May 6, 1994, 18.00 GMT i.e. in two days. Please be sure to submit your vote!!! I have until now received votes from the following members: D.Wells, W.Warren, B.Hanisch, B.Schlesinger and W.Pence. If you have submitted your vote and is not mentioned please resubmit it. B.Hanisch reminded me that the proposals now are available on fits.cv.nrao.edu in the directory fits/documents/proposals with the names: -r--r--r-- 1 dwells 2183 Oct 1 1991 blocking90.txt -r--r--r-- 1 dwells 94980 Jun 4 1992 image.ps -r--r--r-- 1 dwells 12973 Mar 12 1992 image.tex B.Schlesinger wrote: > I would propose an alternative b3), (or perhaps b1')). That >approach would be to proceed now with approval of BINTABLE as it >stands without prejudice as to the future addition of unsigned >integers. The idea would be that since there is no community >consensus at present in favor of unsigned integers, it would clearly >be inappropriate to include them now, but, should the community so >decide at a later time, they could then be added to BINTABLE as one or >more additional data types. Approval of such an addition would follow >the regular procedure. Although everything is possible, it would be very difficult to add new data types once the BINTABLE is agree to. The main problem is that old readers which conform the original definition but do not know the new would misinterpret data or fail. It is correct that the introduction of IEEE floating point did make old readers fail. This is very unfortunate and can only be justified if there is a dramatic functional improvement. I believe it was the case for IEEE-FP (due to the large dynamic range of (reduced) astronomical data). A similar argument is very difficult to make for unsigned integers. Best regards, Preben Grosbol Chairman, IAU FITS WG From iaufwg-request Thu May 5 08:03:43 1994 Received: by fits.cv.nrao.edu (4.1/DDN-DLB/1.5) id AA02486; Thu, 5 May 94 08:03:43 EDT Return-Path: Message-Id: <9405050701.AA06821@ns2.hq.eso.org> To: iaufwg@fits.CV.NRAO.EDU Subject: Yet another reminder - Vote on IMAGE and Blocking proposals Date: Thu, 05 May 94 09:01:36 +0200 From: pgrosbol@eso.org Sender: iaufwg-request@fits.CV.NRAO.EDU Dear IAU-FWG members, Thank you for the additional votes. At this moment I have received votes from the following: D.Wells, W.Warren, B.Hanisch, B.Schlesinger, W.Pence, W.Cotton, E.Rainmond, P.Grosbol. The deadline is still Friday, May 6, 1994, 18.00 GMT It would be nice to keep none-voters to a minimum so please e-mail me your vote before the deadline. Best regards, Preben Grosbol Chairman, IAU FITS WG From iaufwg-request Tue May 10 03:29:43 1994 Received: by fits.cv.nrao.edu (4.1/DDN-DLB/1.5) id AA03629; Tue, 10 May 94 03:29:43 EDT Return-Path: Message-Id: <9405100729.AA19764@ns2.hq.eso.org> To: iaufwg@fits.CV.NRAO.EDU Subject: IMAGE and Blocking proposals accepted Date: Tue, 10 May 94 09:29:24 +0200 From: "Preben Grosbol " Sender: iaufwg-request@fits.CV.NRAO.EDU Garching, May 10, 1994 Dear IAU-FWG members, I am happy to announce that both the IMAGE and Blocking proposals have been accepted by the IAU FITS Working Group in its formal vote which had the deadline at May 6, 1994. The actual votes were as follows: IMAGE extension: 14 yes, 0 no, 2 abstention Blocking: 14 yes, 0 no, 2 abstention According to our voting rules, both proposals were accepted since more that 3/4 of the members votes YES and none voted against. For the BINTABLE, a total of 10 indicated that a vote on the current proposal should be made without delay while none were for a delay. Thus, I will issue a call for votes on the BINTABLE in the end of this week with a foreseen deadline of June 10, 1994. I will also provide new versions of the Blocking agreement and official FITS Extension list. When they are in place on the archives, I will announce the results of the vote on the News group. Best regards, Preben Grosbol Chairman, IAU FITS WG From iaufwg-request Fri May 20 03:25:29 1994 Received: by fits.cv.nrao.edu (4.1/DDN-DLB/1.5) id AA05100; Fri, 20 May 94 03:25:29 EDT Return-Path: Message-Id: <9405200725.AA29523@ns2.hq.eso.org> To: iaufwg@fits.CV.NRAO.EDU Subject: Call for Vote on BINTABLE proposal Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:25:21 +0200 From: "Preben Grosbol " Sender: iaufwg-request@fits.CV.NRAO.EDU Garching, May 20, 1994 Dear IAU-FWG members, As there were no explicit requests to delay the vote on the BINTABLE proposal due to the unsigned integer issue, I hereby call for your vote on the main part of the proposal for a BINTABLE extension to FITS (not including the appendices) with the following clarifications: The basic text of the proposal is available through anonymous ftp at fits.cv.nrao.edu in the directory /fits/documents/proposals as files: 145877 May 18 1993 bintable2.ps 38591 May 18 1993 bintable2.tex Clarifications: 1) page 3, point 9, par. 2: 'The number of bytes determined .. should equal NAXIS1 but NAXIS1 should be used as the definition of the actual length of the row.' replaced by: 'The number of bytes determined from summing the TFORMnnn values must equal NAXIS1.' 2) page 4, point 2: The following sentence is added to the paragraph: 'The default value for EXTVER should be 1.' 3) page 5, point 6: 'Note: TSCALnnn and TZEROnnn are not defined for A, L, P, or X format fields.' replaced by: 'Note: TSCALnnn and TZEROnnn are not defined for A, L, or X format fields. For complex data types (C and M) TSCALnnn and TZEROnnn are the real part of the scaling and offset factors and the imaginary part is 0. The anticipated meaning of TSCALnnn and TZEROnnn for P fields is described in Appendix A.' 4) page 5, point 12: The following sentence is added to the paragraph: 'This is the human or organization that collected the information given in this table.' 5) page 5, point 1: The following sentence is added to the paragraph: 'Any other values are illegal.' Only the main part of the BINTABLE proposal (i.e. sections 1 to 8) is to be voted on. The appendices are at this moment not considered. Please also note that the clarification 3) has been extended to deal with columns of complex type. I ask you to submit (by e-mail to pgrosbol@eso.org) your vote on the BINTABLE proposal with a clear YES or NO. The deadline for votes is: Friday, June 10, 1994, 18.00 GMT You are welcome to submit votes earlier. I will remind you again a few days before the deadline. Best regards, Preben Grosbol Chairman, IAU FITS WG