No subject

> With respect to B.1 (variable length arrays), I have some reservations.
> This proposal requires a full implementation of the HEAP and the P column
> format.  Technically, the B.1 proposal is good and I would endorse it as such.
> The issue is that (as least to my taste) FITS files which conform to the
> standard should be readable by most readers.  The success of FITS is
> to some extend based on this, namely that one having a standard FITS
> file does not need to worry - it is, by default, readable by almost all
> systems.
> 
> If B.1 is included into the standard I am concerned that a significant number
> of systems will be unable to read and access such data.  It is not just a
> matter of if HEAPs can be accessed by software libraries but more if full
> data processing systems can access such data as if they had been in a
> 'normal' table column.  Beside leaving B.1 as it is, there may the following
> options to include it into the standard:
>   1) Adding an clear, explicit preample which states that users cannot assume
>       the HEAP concept to be implemented by all readers and therefore should
>       be cautious in using it.
>  2) Verify that most readers actually already implements the HEAP which
>       would satisfy my concern.
> 
> On B.3, it would be good to know who is actually using it?  One should
> only include, into the standard, features which are used by a broad community.