David, What you're reporting might be a bug introduced in a recent release. I'll take a look.
-Vic On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:24 AM, David Bullock <[email protected]> wrote: > I was surprised today when I saw this in one of my table entries: > > <gs:header row='1' /> > <gs:data insertionMode='overwrite' numRows='10' startRow='2'> > <!-- more columns omitted --> > <gs:column index='A' *name=''*/> > </gs:data> > > > A couple of days ago, the same entry had been defined with: > > <gs:header row='1' /> > <gs:data insertionMode='overwrite' numRows='10' startRow='2'> > <!-- more columns omitted --> > <gs:column index='A' *name='ID'*/> > </gs:data> > > (note that the name has changed from 'ID' to '') > > On a whim, I open up the worksheet, and sure enough, whatever I change cell > A1 to is what turns up as the column name in the tables feed. > > This isn't the behaviour I expected. Since I: > > a) am forced to supply the <gs:data/> section when I > b) am forced to rely on column names when providing the 'sq' query > parameter on the records feed > > therefore, I rely on column names *remaining as I defined them when I > inserted the table entry into the feed*. The names I choose to assign to > the columns are my special, table-specific names for those columns which > happen to suit my needs for working with the records in those tables. > > > In other news, there's also a <gs:options allCols='false' allRows='false'/> > in the feed, which isn't specified in the Spreadsheets 3.0 reference guide > or the RNG schema for the table feed at > http://code.google.com/apis/spreadsheets/data/3.0/schema/table_atom.rnc > > Can you guys like, refrain from making *unannounced* changes to the > semantics of the feeds? > > Now, can we please sit down like server and client and nail down the actual > contract specified by the table feed? The SS 3.0 guide and reference are > quite inadequate on the significance of the <gs:header/> versus the need to > specify <gs:columns/> (one of these must necessarily be ignored by the > server, yet they are both mandatory in the <entry/>). Please explain what > *should* happen, because I can't actually determine it from the docs. > > Amazed in the wrong kind of way, > David. >
