+1 (non-binding) On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (binding) > thanks for aligning the spec > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Thanks for getting this clarification done. >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Thanks for tackling this ! >>>> Szehon >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>
