Added file extension recommendation #212
Merged
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
Merged
m-mohr
reviewed
May 6, 2024
Co-authored-by: Matthias Mohr <matthias@mohr.ws>
m-mohr
approved these changes
May 6, 2024
jorisvandenbossche
approved these changes
May 6, 2024
kylebarron
approved these changes
May 6, 2024
Co-authored-by: Kyle Barron <kylebarron2@gmail.com>
|
Thanks @cholmes |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Adds a recommendation to use
.parquetfor the file extension, as discussed in #211From what I could tell the core parquet specification does not require a specific file extension, so it didn't seem good to require it.
I did not include 'justification' in the text, like a line about how it's not required by the core specification but that some readers may expect it. I figure we can just refer to the discussion of the issue if people want to understand.
I also stopped short of including the
.geo.parquetrecommendation from @hobu. I started to write it, but then didn't find any specific recommendation in https://copc.io/, so it seemed maybe a little overspecified? Happy to add it, but was also thinking we could just mention it in a blog post and put up some examples of it. Could also have validators issue a 'warning' and recommend it when people use .geoparquet.It does feel like the spec could use a bit of reorganization, and it's probably time for a table of contents at the top. I just put this at the very bottom, which does feel quite buried, but the other option was to stick it at the very top. I figured I'd get this in (and maybe #115) and then try a PR that just re-organizes.
Closes #211