[fitsbits] updates to the FITS standard document

[Erik Bray]

On 6/22/2015 5:28 AM, THIERRY FORVEILLE wrote:
>> Lucio proposed the shortened 3 week review period for logistical reasons
>> because the conventions under review have been in use for years and
>> should be familiar to most FITS users.
>>
> The thing is that their being mere conventions made me (and perhaps others)
> treat those I was not interested in with benign neglect. Their now "suddenly"
> being considered for inclusion into the standard itself changes the context
> rather drastically, and makes me want to look at them in detail rather than
> just check the quality of their documentation.

I believe that the INHERIT keyword convention, in particular, is *not* familiar 
to most users of FITS in large part because many readers ignore it, and it is 
benign when ignored.

Suddenly requiring it to be interpreted would be very surprising to many users, 
and even if support for it were implemented I anticipate "bug" reports from 
users surprised that keywords that don't physically appear in some header are 
suddenly showing up (somehow...the other problem with the INHERIT convention, as 
documented, is that its interpretation by software is unspecified, which I 
believe to be dangerous and user-hostile).

If I had a vote it would be "NO" on the INHERIT convention--the others I think 
have better existing support in the community and are benign and/or 
well-specified.  But I think this deserves more time for discussion.

Erik