roy at cacr.caltech.edu
Sat Sep 16 18:48:35 PDT 2006
On Sep 16, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Tom McGlynn wrote:
> There are lots of perfectly readable coordinates that would flunk
> and are used in the literature.
Well then they are not compliant. I just want to know if there is a
serious momentum to clean up the sexg mess. Am I the only person who
thinks it's a mess? If so, then I will be happy to forget about it.
> Anywhere we have coordinates
> (especially coordinate pairs) we are very likely to see target
> names as well -- by design or because of user error.
So you try to parse out six numbers. If you don't, then you see if it
is an object name. But your statement of how to parse sexg is long,
complex and fluffy. But in the end, can you parse 23".54, which is
what they did back when I learned this stuff? But my parsing is
simple (also for Micol scheme), and can be explained in ten words or
so -- "six numbers separated by non-digits". I want to know if the
IVOA has the will to voluntarily simplify, see if they see enough
"If we can do this one thing, if we can clean up sexagesimal formats,
then all the VO money has been well spent!" -- Johannes Kepler*
(*) Kepler did not say this
California Institute of Technology
626 395 3670
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dm