|
|
|
|
0 |
1,234 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
838 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
880 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
697 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1,141 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
795 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
882 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
859 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
819 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
908 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
879 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
961 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
848 |
|
|
[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 |
689 |
|
|
[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 |
921 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
637 |
|
|
[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 |
720 |
|
|
[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 |
745 |
|
|
[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 |
792 |
|
|
[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 |
842 |