<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Hi Sébastien and Norman,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Thank you for the responses! I think I am content with continuing to use
<b>Sun</b> as the most reasonable available unit to describe the FIELDs we have, but I am less clear on why it would be considered valid according to the standard.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Sun</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> is a valid vounit symbol. It is described in the current Recommendation, and this<br>
should not change in version 1.1 currently in preparation. The problem comes from the<br>
validator that ignored Sun, but this should get fixed, see :<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/heptapod.host/nxg/unity/-/issues/11__;!!CrWY41Z8OgsX0i-WU-0LuAcUu2o!0C37XentP6REz1B5JpwoHuwQX6BYnX6-RUFiwlrFqMrpjaGG3s9iZpejm7qfPwwfoyVpyN8bKvrduzFJYMfRBJHzQu6Qc2LBgKed$">https://heptapod.host/nxg/unity/-/issues/11</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt">My reading of the document is that <b>Sun</b> appears in Tables 5 and 14. The wording around and within those tables does suggest that it is a VOUnit. However appendix C.4, which is the normative definition of the grammar,
does not refer to either of those tables so would seem to say that <b>Sun</b> could not be recognized by the grammar.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I note that essentially all of the other units mentioned in Table 5 are also present in Table 2 which
<b>is</b> referenced by the grammar definition. Was Sun left out of Table 2 on purpose or an error? Should C.4 have referenced more tables? (or most likely, am I just misreading the document?) Although all of section 2 is labelled “normative”, and section
2.8 contains Table 5, the wording there is just ambiguous enough to me that if I were implementing a validator I would probably favor the more explicit appendix C.4.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I’m not just asking to be pedantic (and to decide whether to surround our Sun with single quotes). It turns out that astropy’s VOUnit validation also does considers Sun to be unknown (but does recognize all the other units
in Table 5 that are also in Table 2). Before starting an issue or PR with astropy regarding Sun, I want to make sure that it is indeed “officially” recognized by the standard.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Thanks!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Tom<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>