Closed tomdonaldson closed 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.
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.
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 for1.5pre1
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?
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.
This PR removes the proposal to use new COOSYS subelements for epoch propagation which was added in PR #40. Preserved from that PR are:
test
which usesstilts
to validate the standalone file VOTable examplesVOTable
version 1.5 available in the xsdIn addition, the following changes were made to prepare for the next working draft:
refposition
to<COOSYS>
in thetimesys_example.vot
. This seemed like a good idea since I noticed that prior updates inadvertently droppedrefposition
fromCOOSYS
in the xsdrefposition
in<COOSYS>
(resolves #41)