+1 (binding) assuming we explicitly state RFC-8259
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, at 08:02, Matt Topol wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 5:36 PM Ian Cook <ianmc...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> I added a comment in the PR suggesting that we explicitly refer to RFC-8259 >> in CanonicalExtensions.rst. >> >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 1:21 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > +1, I added a comment to the PR because I think we should recommend >> > implementations specifically reject parsing Binary arrays with the >> > annotation in-case we want to support non-UTF8 encodings in the future >> > (even thought IIRC these aren't really JSON spec compliant). >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 1:24 PM Rok Mihevc <rok.mih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > Following discussions [1][2] and preliminary implementation work (by >> > > Pradeep Gollakota) [3] I would like to propose a vote to add language >> for >> > > JSON canonical extension type to CanonicalExtensions.rst as in PR [4] >> and >> > > written below. >> > > A draft C++ implementation PR can be seen here [3]. >> > > >> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/p3353oz6lk846pnoq6vk638tjqz2hm1j >> > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/7xph3476g9rhl9mtqvn804fqf5z8yoo1 >> > > [3] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/13901 >> > > [4] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/41257 <- proposed change >> > > >> > > >> > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >> > > >> > > [ ] +1 Accept this proposal >> > > [ ] +0 >> > > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... >> > > >> > > >> > > JSON >> > > ==== >> > > >> > > * Extension name: `arrow.json`. >> > > >> > > * The storage type of this extension is ``StringArray`` or >> > > or ``LargeStringArray`` or ``StringViewArray``. >> > > Only UTF-8 encoded JSON is supported. >> > > >> > > * Extension type parameters: >> > > >> > > This type does not have any parameters. >> > > >> > > * Description of the serialization: >> > > >> > > Metadata is either an empty string or a JSON string with an empty >> > object. >> > > In the future, additional fields may be added, but they are not >> > required >> > > to interpret the array. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Rok >> > > >> > >>
