+1 (binding) I left some minor comments regarding syntax and grammar issues. It will be good to address them before merging.
On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:47 AM huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> thanks for aligning the spec >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> Thanks for getting this clarification done. >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for tackling this ! >>>>> Szehon >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Iceberg community! >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for >>>>>> geospatial type. >>>>>> >>>>>> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as >>>>>> either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed to >>>>>> be >>>>>> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed formats, >>>>>> or >>>>>> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording so >>>>>> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. >>>>>> >>>>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S >>>>>> >>>>>> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: >>>>>> - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f >>>>>> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Milan >>>>>> >>>>>>
