On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Thomas McGlynn wrote:
> At it's clear that the USNO table is incorrect in the new version
> (since it specifies that the column is a double).
I've just retrieved a table from the USNO-B conesearch using the URL: http://www.nofs.navy.mil/cgi-bin/vo_cone.cgi?CAT=USNO-B1&RA=50.1&DEC=-37.5&SR=0.16 It has RA and DEC FIELD components with the attributes
datatype="double" arraysize="3x1"
which, while you might argue it's eccentric, is not incorrect, this is exactly how you specify an array-valued column according to both versions 1.0 and 1.1 of the standard.
-- Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK m.b.taylor@bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/Received on 2006-04-21Z10:58:56