On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Alasdair Allan wrote:
> Yes, FITS became a storage and processing format, however it was (and
> still isn't) particularly good at those jobs.
> I can't agree that FITS is a good file format, the only reason anyone gets
> anything done with it at all is that its a mature platform, with lots of
> tools available to hide the true horror from you...
I agree with all your remarks, Alasdair. I wasn't saying that FITS was well-designed as a storage format (that's nobody's fault, it wasn't ever designed with this in mind). I agree we should try to design something better, although we may have differences of opinion as to whether VOTable is a step along the way, as it's also designed as a data _transport_ format.
> > ...and as a result some FITS-using communities have defined their own
> > ad-hoc standards.
>
> You say this like it's a good thing!?
No, I was just pointing out the sort of features that VOTable needs to support have before it can be taken as anywhere near mature. These ad hoc conventions grew up partly because the official FITS standardisation process was so cumbersome. Actually a good way of setting up a "standard" is for two (or more) places to agree something and interchange data using it. That's how FITS started. These GSFC/HEASARC conventions are now quite widely used.
-- Clive Page Dept of Physics & Astronomy, University of Leicester, Tel +44 116 252 3551 Leicester, LE1 7RH, U.K. Fax +44 116 252 3311Received on 2004-04-14Z12:30:49