|
|
|
|
0 |
1,251 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
845 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
886 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
704 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1,154 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
803 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
890 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
866 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
825 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
916 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
887 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
966 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
856 |
|
|
[fitsbits] New DUMP FITS extension by
Preben Grosbol
On Thursday 16 August 2007 21:51, William Pence wrote:
The question is what do we (the FITS community in general, and the
IAUFWG in particular) do now?...
|
|
0 |
705 |
|
|
[fitsbits] New DUMP FITS extension by
William Pence
One of the proposed changes to the FITS Standard is a complete rewrite
of the Appendix F (previously Appendix I) which lists the reserved FITS
extension type...
|
|
1 |
930 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
646 |
|
|
[fitsbits] New DUMP FITS extension by
Doug Tody
Hi Maren -
This is a good question, for which there is no real answer. One can do
these things, so the question becomes is it good practice? What should
we...
|
|
0 |
728 |
|
|
[fitsbits] New DUMP FITS extension by
Maren Purves
Doug,
Doug Tody wrote:
My personal view on the more general question is that Image should
only be used for image data, and it is a trick to stuff...
|
|
0 |
756 |
|
|
[fitsbits] New DUMP FITS extension by
Doug Tody
Hi Bill -
Since the convention is in use for actual data, we should probably
follow our existing practice of merely documenting existing
conventions, and...
|
|
0 |
799 |
|
|
[fitsbits] New DUMP FITS extension by
Steve Allen
On Thu 2007-08-16T15:51:18 -0400, William Pence hath writ:
The question is what do we (the FITS community in general, and the
IAUFWG in particular) do...
|
|
0 |
850 |