Hi Iceberg community!

I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for
geospatial type.

Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as either
being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed to be
populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed formats, or
are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording so
that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity.

PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834.

P.S

There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well:
 - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f
 - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560

Thanks,
Milan

Reply via email to