+1 On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 4:03 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote:
> +1 (binding) for the current proposal, i.e. with the RFC 8289 > requirement and the 3 current String types allowed. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > Le 30/04/2024 à 19:26, Rok Mihevc a écrit : > > Hi all, thanks for the votes and comments so far. > > I've amended [1] the proposed language with the RFC-8259 requirement as > it > > seems to be almost unanimously requested. New language is below. > > To Micah's comment regarding rejecting Binary arrays [2] - please discuss > > in the PR. > > > > Let's leave the vote open until after the May holiday. > > > > Rok > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/41257/commits/594945010e3b7d393b411aad971743ffcdbdbc8e > > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/41257#discussion_r1583441040 > > > > > > JSON > > ==== > > > > * Extension name: `arrow.json`. > > > > * The storage type of this extension is ``StringArray`` or > > or ``LargeStringArray`` or ``StringViewArray``. > > *Only UTF-8 encoded JSON as specified in `rfc8259`_ 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. > > >
