Version 100-2.0 of NASA FITS Standard released

[Patrick Wallace]

> >     The real problem is the word "deprecate" itself.  That word has
> > been given a meaning by the ANSI which has been used then [...]
> > and we do not mean that meaning.  I think we should find a new word.

I think "deprecate" is just fine.  It's an English word, not owned by
ANSI the last time I consulted the OED, and we can have it mean whatever
shade of disapproval we choose.

What I assume all we mean is that we are recommending to implementors of
new FITS-writing programs that they avoid using the feature.  The reasons
for deprecation are really a separate matter, but we should list a few
examples to encourage compliance.  (For example don't use feature A when
feature B works much better.)

If someone in a few years decides to write a program that reads FITS files,
and decides not to bother supporting one or more deprecated features, then
to my mind that's acceptable as long as they own up.  The program they've
written is a reader of a subset of valid FITS files; as long as they don't
try and pass it off as a completely universal FITS reader we surely have no
grounds for complaint.

Patrick Wallace
____________________________________________________________________________
Starlink Project Manager                        Internet:  ptw at star.rl.ac.uk
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory                       Tel:    +44-1235-445372
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX, UK                   Fax:    +44-1235-446667
____________________________________________________________________________