Subject: Call for Vote on IMAGE and Blocking proposals

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 94 12:51:53 +0200

Garching, April 20, 1994

Dear IAU-FWG members,
 I have hesitated calling the final vote on the three proposal due to
the on-going unsigned integer discussions. It mainly concerns the
BINTABLE proposal and should no stall a final vote of the IMAGE and
Blocking proposals. Thus, I hereby call for your vote on the IMAGE and
Blocking proposals including the clarifications given below:

1) IMAGE extension

   The text of the proposal is available through anonymous ftp at 
   fits.cv.nrao.edu in the directory /FITS/Documents as files:
                 94980 Jun  4  1992 X_image.ps
                 12973 Mar 12  1992 X_image.tex

   Clarification:
      Only PCOUNT=0/GCOUNT=1 is allowed (as specified in Table 1).
      Section 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 shall be interpreted in this sense.

2) Blocking proposal

   The text of the proposal is available through anonymous ftp at 
   fits.cv.nrao.edu in the directory /FITS/Documents as files:
                  2183 Oct  1  1991 FITS_blocking90.txt

   Clarification:
      The sentence 'Reading an incomplete FITS logical record should be
                    regarded as an end-of-file.'
      in section 2 is replaced by:
                   'After detection of an end-of-file on reading, any 
                   incomplete logical FITS record should be disregarded.'

I hereby ask you to submit (by e-mail to [email-masked]) your votes
on each of the two proposals with a clear YES or NO (i.e. indicate if
you vote YES/NO to 1) the IMAGE extension and if you vote YES/NO to 2)
the Blocking proposal).  The deadline for votes is:

                Friday, May 6, 1994, 18.00 GMT

You are welcome to submit votes earlier. I will remind you again a few
days before the deadline.

For BINTABLE, I ask you for your opinion on two additional issues:

 a) The possible scaling of values pointed to by a P-format field
    was mentioned on the news-group. To make that possible through
    a conversion later the authors of the BINTABLE proposal suggest
    to change the sentence page 4 point 6:
       'Note: TSCALnnn and TZEROnnn are not defined for A, L, P,
        or X format fields'
    to:
       'Note: TSCALnnn and TZEROnnn are not defined for A, L, or
        X format fields.  The anticipated meaning of TSCALnnn and
        TZEROnnn for P fields is described in Appendix A.'

 b) A more severe point is possible inclusion of unsigned integer
    types. It has been argued, on the net, that one should allow and
    define special format types for unsigned integers for BINTABLEs.
    Such a change would be significant and call for a re-approval
    of a modified BINTABLE proposal by the local FITS groups! Thus,
    two approaches can be made:
     b1) We can regard the suggestion for unsigned integer types
         not justified and go ahead with the formal approval of the
         BINTABLE proposal with the minor clarifications,
    or
     b2) Postpone a vote in the IAU FITS WG until the local FITS
         Committees have had time to consider and approve a revised
         version of the BINTABLE proposal. (This may well take more
         than one year.)

    I do not believe that unsigned integers are essential for a
    transport format like FITS and would therefore recommend to
    take option b1). Further, there seems not to be a consensus
    in the community on the introduction of unsigned integers.

    It is a rather important issue and I ask you to let me know your
    opinion especially if you want to postpone the vote (b2). If more
    that half of the IAU FITS WG express their support of option (b2)
    through e-mail to me before May 6, I will not call a vote on the
    BINTABLE before the local committees have been heard otherwise
    I will go ahead with a formal vote.

Best regards,

Preben Grosbol
Chairman, IAU FITS WG