search

ivoa-std / VOTable

VOTable Format Definition
4 stars 15 forks source link

Remove epoch propagation and cleanup for WD #48

Closed tomdonaldson closed 10 months ago

tomdonaldson commented 10 months ago

This PR removes the proposal to use new COOSYS subelements for epoch propagation which was added in PR #40. Preserved from that PR are:

In addition, the following changes were made to prepare for the next working draft:

msdemlei commented 10 months ago

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:25:08AM -0700, Mark Taylor wrote:

added and one other thing: should the VOTable.vor record be updated at this stage for v1.5? Or maybe that happens nearer the REC. Maybe @msdemlei can comment on that.

If you're 99% sure that the schema won't change in RFC, having v1.5 in the XSD is all right. If not, I'd vote for leaving it tagged; it's not the end of the world if two VOTable XSDs with @.***="1.5" float around, but it's not pretty either.

tomdonaldson commented 10 months ago

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:25:08AM -0700, Mark Taylor wrote: added and one other thing: should the VOTable.vor record be updated at this stage for v1.5? Or maybe that happens nearer the REC. Maybe @msdemlei can comment on that. If you're 99% sure that the schema won't change in RFC, having v1.5 in the XSD is all right. If not, I'd vote for leaving it tagged; it's not the end of the world if two VOTable XSDs with @.***="1.5" float around, but it's not pretty either.

I'm seeing 2 separate, but related things here. When should we update VOTable.vor, and what version should I put in the schema now? I take Markus' point on the schema, so I can update that to 1.5pre3 I guess. In preserving the history of the multiple versions, I can restore the original comment for 1.5pre1 as well.

My thinking on the vor file was that that would get updated when building the REC. I'm happy to be corrected on that.

tomdonaldson commented 10 months ago

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:25:08AM -0700, Mark Taylor wrote: added and one other thing: should the VOTable.vor record be updated at this stage for v1.5? Or maybe that happens nearer the REC. Maybe @msdemlei can comment on that. If you're 99% sure that the schema won't change in RFC, having v1.5 in the XSD is all right. If not, I'd vote for leaving it tagged; it's not the end of the world if two VOTable XSDs with @.***="1.5" float around, but it's not pretty either.

I'm seeing 2 separate, but related things here. When should we update VOTable.vor, and what version should I put in the schema now? I take Markus' point on the schema, so I can update that to 1.5pre3 I guess. In preserving the history of the multiple versions, I can restore the original comment for 1.5pre1 as well.

My thinking on the vor file was that that would get updated when building the REC. I'm happy to be corrected on that.

@msdemlei are you comfortable with the updated schema version and the unchanged state of VOTable.vor?

msdemlei commented 10 months ago

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 08:04:03AM -0700, Tom wrote:

My thinking on the vor file was that that would get updated when building the REC. I'm happy to be corrected on that.

@msdemlei are you comfortable with the updated schema version and the unchanged state of VOTable.vor?

Yes... that actually sounds like a very good idea.