[fitsbits] versioning vs. schema -- where does it stop?

[Maren Purves]

Francois Ochsenbein wrote:
>>>There was also some suggestion about having a versioning mechanism in
>>>FITS -- and it would be a great benefit, I think, to know right from the
>>>beginning of a FITS input stream that it has (or may have), far beyond the
>>>beginning of the file, some extensions which may NOT be recognized by an
>>>old software. I feel this modification would be a good opportunity to
>>>include this versioning mechanism in FITS.
>>
>>Doesn't a versioning mechanism effectively require creating and
>>approving a list of UCDs for various FITS concepts?
>>
>>I am left wondering whether it is politically possible in the current
>>environment to create a versioning mechanism for FITS which does not
>>extend most of the way toward requiring an XML schema definition.
>>
> 
> 
> ===> I was in fact thinking on a really light-weight mechanism --
>      for instance just a recommendation to include a version
>      number of smething similar in comment part of the SIMPLE 
>      keyword if the FITS file potentially makes use of the 64 bit.

if you want to distinguish it, why not put in a VERSION (or
something of the sort) keyword?
Whoever doesn't use it can ignore it, but hiding information
that may be necessary for processing in the comments doesn't
sound like a good idea to me.

Aloha,

Maren Purves
UKIRT