Refer to RFC 2119 for definition of requirement levels #160
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cholmes
approved these changes
Dec 13, 2022
| @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ column (and not per geometry). | |||
|
|
|||
| This is the binary format that the geometry is encoded in. | |||
| The string `"WKB"`, signifying Well Known Binary is the only current option, but future versions | |||
| of the spec may support alternative encodings. This should be the ["OpenGIS® Implementation Specification for Geographic information - Simple feature access - Part 1: Common architecture"](https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=18241) WKB representation (using codes for 3D geometry types in the \[1001,1007\] range). This encoding is also consistent with the one defined in the ["ISO/IEC 13249-3:2016 (Information technology - Database languages - SQL multimedia and application packages - Part 3: Spatial)"](https://www.iso.org/standard/60343.html) standard. | |||
| of the spec may support alternative encodings. This SHOULD be the ["OpenGIS® Implementation Specification for Geographic information - Simple feature access - Part 1: Common architecture"](https://portal.ogc.org/files/?artifact_id=18241) WKB representation (using codes for 3D geometry types in the \[1001,1007\] range). This encoding is also consistent with the one defined in the ["ISO/IEC 13249-3:2016 (Information technology - Database languages - SQL multimedia and application packages - Part 3: Spatial)"](https://www.iso.org/standard/60343.html) standard. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be a MUST?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably. I was wondering the same and should have asked. Thought maybe there had been previous justification for making it a recommendation instead of a requirement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, to be honest I am not sure how important this is. I only know well the GEOS WKB parser, and that one is flexible in parsing both ISO and extended flavors out of the box, so the geopandas reader for geoparquet wouldn't actually care what flavor of WKB is used.
(and we actually also need to update our writer to use the correct flavor to honor the spec!)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds a link to RFC 2119 for the definition of "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL".
I changed a number of instances of "must" to "MUST" (etc.) to conform with convention. I didn't change all. Personally I feel like this is enough to unblock the 1.0.0-beta.1 release and that we can keep iterating on formalizing the requirements (but I'm also open to suggested changes).
Fixes #26.