+1 (non-binding) I added a comment in the PR suggesting that we explicitly refer to RFC-8259 in CanonicalExtensions.rst.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 1:21 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1, I added a comment to the PR because I think we should recommend > implementations specifically reject parsing Binary arrays with the > annotation in-case we want to support non-UTF8 encodings in the future > (even thought IIRC these aren't really JSON spec compliant). > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 1:24 PM Rok Mihevc <rok.mih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Following discussions [1][2] and preliminary implementation work (by > > Pradeep Gollakota) [3] I would like to propose a vote to add language for > > JSON canonical extension type to CanonicalExtensions.rst as in PR [4] and > > written below. > > A draft C++ implementation PR can be seen here [3]. > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/p3353oz6lk846pnoq6vk638tjqz2hm1j > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/7xph3476g9rhl9mtqvn804fqf5z8yoo1 > > [3] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/13901 > > [4] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/41257 <- proposed change > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > [ ] +1 Accept this proposal > > [ ] +0 > > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... > > > > > > JSON > > ==== > > > > * Extension name: `arrow.json`. > > > > * The storage type of this extension is ``StringArray`` or > > or ``LargeStringArray`` or ``StringViewArray``. > > Only UTF-8 encoded JSON 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. > > > > > > > > Rok > > >
