The following is a valid .fasta file content:
>HSBGPG Human gene for bone gla protein (BGP) GGCAGATTCCCCCTAGACCCGCCCGCACCATGGTCAGGCATGCCCCTCCTCATCGCTGGGCACAGCCCAGAGGGT ATAAACAGTGCTGGAGGCTGGCGGGGCAGGCCAGCTGAGTCCTGAGCAGCAGCCCAGCGCAGCCACCGAGACACC ATGAG.
Is this also?
>Arbirary_Name_iJustCameUP_with_and_other_local_identifiers GGCAGATTCCCCCTAGACCCGCCCGCACCATGGTCAGGCATGCCCCTCCTCATCGCTGGGCACAGCCCAGAGGGT ATAAACAGTGCTGGAGGCTGGCGGGGCAGGCCAGCTGAGTCCTGAGCAGCAGCCCAGCGCAGCCACCGAGACACC ATGAG.
>line is considered comments. Those texts are not part of sequence names. – user172818 Jul 10 '21 at 14:09> foo(with a space). Either it was many years ago or I imagined it, or both. I'm still convinced I remember it but the brain does play tricks so I won't press the point. – terdon Jul 12 '21 at 18:25>sequence_name1 and description. I don't know if this example was in the earliest version of fasta, but anyway the original authors have accepted this convention, too. You can download sequences in fasta from NCBI or Ensembl and you will see they clearly put all sorts of auxiliary information after a space. Fastq has a paper which follows the same convention. – user172818 Jul 12 '21 at 21:30fastatool? If that already had that convention, then that's a pretty strong argument indeed. As for being an accepted convention, absolutely, no question about that. I just know that I've seen all sorts of stuff in various fasta headers in the wild so I'm wary of saying that anything is standardized in the format. – terdon Jul 12 '21 at 21:38