[fitsbits] structurally compliant FITS

[William Pence]

On 6/29/2015 6:44 AM, patrick.wallace at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>> About "optional" and "harmless".
>
> In my view the distinction between standard FITS and optional
> conventions is so crucial that there should be separate documents
> (or perhaps "should have been" if it is now too late).
>
> The standard should contain what FITS readers/writers *must*
> implement;  the other document, perhaps called a "style guide",
> would set out and name the various well-established conventions
> that implementors may or may not provide for.
>

Hi Pat,

I take the much more pragmatic view that the Standard can and should 
contain whatever information is of value to the FITS user community. 
Including the occasional usage tip or implementation example can be 
invaluable.  We have tried the alternative of segregating certain 
information in a Users Guide, or on separate Web pages, but many users 
are unaware of these separate sources of information, and others have 
erroneously concluded that because the information is not in the 
Standard, then it is not truly valid or reliable.  Not to mention the 
fact that we are a small community dependent on volunteers to do all the 
work, so suggesting that someone write new documents is not realistic.

Bill