\begin{table}%t4
%%%\centering
\par
  \caption{\label{model_tab}Single halo models. The Einstein radius is the same in the best
    models for strong lensing : $R_{\rm E} \simeq 50 \hmkpc$.
    For our two strong lensing models, the total mass inside this radius is
    $M(r<R_{\rm E}) = (2.8\pm0.1)\times 10^{13}~h^{-1}~{M}_\odot$. Errors due to
    uncertainties in arcs redshift are omitted. Also reported previous works
    results for comparison. Me93 refers to Mellier et~al. (\cite{Mellier93}), Ha97 to
    Hammer et~al. (\cite{Hammer97}), Mi95 to~\mbox{Miralda-Escud\'{e}} (\cite{Miralda95}) EF99 to Ettori \& Fabian (\cite{Ettori99})
    and~Al02 to Allen et~al. (\cite{Allen}). When known, the authors' values are
    recomputed in our adopted cosmology and with the 1.6~sources redshifts.
    For both papers, the center of potential location is assumed to match
    the center of cD or is not reported. Me93 core radii have been scaled in
    order to take into account the departs between their profile and an exact
    softened isothermal sphere. As well, Ha97 find a slope $\beta \approx 0.85$
    instead we have only considered models with $\beta = 1$ (see Eq.~(\ref{hamprof_eq})). Al02 uses a NFW~profile and only gives the scale radius
    value but we report on the same line our own measured values for ellipticity
    and position angle from Chandra X-ray brightness.
    The third column $r_{\rm c} \backslash r_{\rm s}$ corresponds either to the scale
    radius either to the core radius.
    Here, we convert all the position angles in a common definition, which
    is clockwise from North to East. The original paper do not report angles in
    the same frame but we made the correction except for Ha97 for which we do not know
    what is the reference. But in any case, the position angle is so constrained that
    these authors must have found a similar orientation as the other ones. Our
    definition is more valuable and self-consistent between Chandra, ROSAT,
    VLT and HST data.
    Models labels with a S refer to purely strong lensing modeling whereas a W stands
    for purely weak lensing fits. 
    The last row (cD+DM) concerns the last family of profiles with a cD and dark
    matter halo components and which is simultaneously constrained by strong+weak
    lensing. In the first column, we report the permitted inner slope for
    generalized NFW~profiles (see Sect. \ref{slope_subsub}).}
    \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccc}
    \hline\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
      model  &$\sigma_{\rm v}$&$r_{\rm c} \backslash r_{\rm s}$&$\kappa_{\rm s}$&$r_{\rm 200}$&c&$M_{\rm 200}$&$\epsilon$&PA&$x_{\rm c}$&$y_{\rm c}$\\
      &(km~s$^{-1}$)&$(\hmkpc)$&&$(\hmkpc)$&&$(10^{14}~h^{-1}~{M}_\odot)$&&deg&arcsec&arcsec\\
      \noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
      S--NFW &--&$\rm 90^{+35}_{-25}$&$\rm 0.6^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$&$\rm 920^{+180}_{-80}$&$\rm 12.5^{+5}_{-6}$&$\sim$$5.5$&$\rm 0.24^{+0.04}_{-0.07}$&$58\pm1$&$0.1\pm0.4$&$0.2\pm0.4$\\\noalign{\smallskip}
      W--NFW &--& $\rm 67^{+300}_{-24} $&$\rm 0.74_{-0.5}^{+1.6}$&$\rm 890^{+160}_{-130}$& $\rm 12_{-8}^{+12}$&--&--&--&--\\\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
      S-isoT &$\rm 1022^{+40}_{-30}$&$10.4\pm1.8$&--&$\sim$$1000$&--&$\sim$$11.$&$0.25\pm0.05$&$59\pm1$&$0.2\pm0.4$&$0.2\pm0.4$\\ 
      W-isoT & $900 \pm 150$& $<$45&--&--&--&--&--&--&--\\\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
      Me93 &$\sim$$1000$&$4.5{-}7$&--&--&--&--&$0.15-0.33$&$51{-}66$&--&--\\
      Mi95 &$\sim$$1200$&$\sim$$10$&--&--&--&--&$\sim$$0.22$&$\sim$$58$&--&--\\ 
      Ha97 &$\sim$$1100$&$5{-}10$&--&--&--&--&$0.18{-}0.23$&$?47.5\pm5?$&--&--\\ 
      EF99 &$\sim$$930$&$\sim$$90$&--&$r_{500}\sim540$&--&--&--&--&--&-- \\
      Al02 &--&$107{-}120$&--&--&--&--&$\sim$$0.20$&$58\pm7$&--&--\\ \noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
      cD+DM &$0.8<\alpha<1.1$&$\sim$$85$&$\sim$$0.6$&--&--&--&$0.22\pm0.06$&$58\pm2$& 0! & 0!\\ \hline
    \end{tabular}
\end{table}