> I don't think there's a lot of value where the specification of a table format is left to the client Considering that you currently can use non-Iceberg tables in Polaris with the Spark client and it works end-to-end, I'd have a hard time agreeing that there is no value.
But I think this discussion is maybe best moved to another thread. The incremental change to add a location may make sense for the existing generic table implementation, even if later we reach a consensus to rip it out and replace it with something more "comprehensive". --EM
