[fitswcs] WCS documents

[Eric Greisen]

Steve Allen writes:
 > 
 > First of all, this is only a good idea if Eric Greisen thinks it is.

         I don't unless this section spurs a discussion that hold up
the works.  Given that the two groups who designed good units
conventions both have told me they like my compromise, I would hope
that this does not happen.

 > 
 > Doesn't this create a potentially ugly interdependency of approvals?
 > The WCS paper introduces the CUNIT keyword, and without the existence of
 > appendix B there must already be something in effect for Paper I to
 > reference.

          Yes.

 > 
 > The existence of Appendix B of paper I means that its provisions are
 > merely suggestions that need not be reviewed for absolute correctness.
 > I don't believe that anyone besides myself has used a machine parser
 > to prove that there are no ambiguities in the current Appendix B.  If
 > moved to the official standard it would need much more stringent
 > review.

         Actually I meant for the entire papers to be voted on as an
approved standard.  If I meant anything else, I would have said so in
the paper itself.  I had originally expected that Appndix B would
be only "recommended" but it has received so much support from the
groups that I thought would not like it, that I did not add the
"recommended" phraseology to that appendix.

      What we do need to address is whether the  "This convention is
not part of the main world coordinates convention." phrase in all 3
papers attached to the appendix on tables is appropriate or whether we
should make the tables nomenclature part of the standard.  It seems to
me that it is widely used, well thought out, and appropriate after all
this time to bepart of the main standard.

Eric Greisen