|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[fitsbits] Abuse of EXTEND keyword
On Friday 24 August 2007 14:12, Randall Thompson wrote:
If the consensus is that there should not be any connection between the primary header and extensions. perhaps this should be stated in the revised standard. For example, state that it should be possible to add extensions without requiring any changes to the primary header. This would of course deprecate the EXTEND keyword. It's a complex issue with no easy answer. In many interferometric FITS files, there are binary tables which sometimes cross reference each other. Without a unique FITS extension identifier, this may be tricky. I just wanted the voice the potential danger. I don't see any implications on EXTEND as it does neither explicitly refer to the number of extensions nor to an individual extension but only indicates the general format of them. As said before, I have no problems with making it optional (or even deprecate it) assuming that it is obvious that no other kind of extension can exist. I still believe that it was justified and useful during the transition period but that has long passed. Preben |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[fitsbits] Abuse of EXTEND keyword | Randall Thompson | FITS | 0 | August 24th 07 01:12 PM |
[fitsbits] Abuse of EXTEND keyword | Preben Grosbol | FITS | 0 | August 24th 07 08:46 AM |
[fitsbits] Abuse of EXTEND keyword | Preben Grosbol | FITS | 1 | August 23rd 07 01:59 PM |
[fitsbits] Clarification of EXTEND, please | Stephen Walton | FITS | 8 | May 19th 04 12:53 AM |
[fitsbits] Clarification of EXTEND, please | Thierry Forveille | FITS | 0 | May 14th 04 06:31 PM |