Hi @mth75,
Thank you for your request.
I will put this on the RFC list, but it will be completely at the bottom for now.
What would be the use case of supporting Xisf for you since you request this?
Maybe I am not up-to-date, but as long as no camera manufacturers or any capture application uses xisf I can’t see a real use-case for supporting xisf. If camera manufacturers start to use xisf, I’ll move this quickly to the top of the RFC list, since the use case becomes very clear then.
To my knowledge, xisf is created by PI and only used by PI. They have made FITS redundant, which is obviously very strange to state since the whole astronomical scientific community is working with FITS and not with xisf. But maybe I have missed something so please let me know if others are transitioning to xisf as well.
(FITS is perfectly able to store all kinds of data formats (unlike the statements made by the main PI developer) and so called problems with the FITS format are the result of bad API libraries or misunderstanding of the FITS conventions, at least that is my opinion.
Be aware that NASA actually still is putting money and effort in the further development of the FITS standard and APP is using their latest library.)