Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (binding) Thanks Szehon On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 10:41 AM huaxin gao wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 9:29 AM Denny Lee wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 8:37 AM Daniel Weeks wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:24 AM Russell

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

The vote passes with 7 binding +1's and 4 non-binding +1's. Thanks everyone for voting! Szehon On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 3:26 PM Szehon Ho wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks > Szehon > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 10:41 AM huaxin gao wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 9:29 AM Den

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (non-binding) On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 9:29 AM Denny Lee wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 8:37 AM Daniel Weeks wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:24 AM Russell Spitzer >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (bind) >>> >>> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:32 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (non-binding) On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 8:37 AM Daniel Weeks wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:24 AM Russell Spitzer > wrote: > >> +1 (bind) >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:32 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Wed, May 7,

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (binding) On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:24 AM Russell Spitzer wrote: > +1 (bind) > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:32 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < > etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:14 AM Gang Wu wrote: >> >>> The clarification is simple and clear from the w

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (b) Op wo 7 mei 2025 om 16:24 schreef Russell Spitzer : > +1 (bind) > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:32 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < > etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:14 AM Gang Wu wrote: >> >>> The clarification is simple and clear from the writer's p

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (bind) On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 7:32 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:14 AM Gang Wu wrote: > >> The clarification is simple and clear from the writer's perspective. >> >> CMIW, the implication is that reader should drop bbox with any NaN value >> regardl

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (binding) On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 6:32 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:14 AM Gang Wu wrote: > >> The clarification is simple and clear from the writer's perspective. >> >> CMIW, the implication is that reader should drop bbox with any NaN value >> rega

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (binding) On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:14 AM Gang Wu wrote: > The clarification is simple and clear from the writer's perspective. > > CMIW, the implication is that reader should drop bbox with any NaN value > regardless of the coordinate axis (in case of a writer bug). > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

The clarification is simple and clear from the writer's perspective. CMIW, the implication is that reader should drop bbox with any NaN value regardless of the coordinate axis (in case of a writer bug). On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 6:21 AM Huang-Hsiang Cheng wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On May 6, 20

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (non-binding) > On May 6, 2025, at 2:53 PM, Ryan Blue wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > Thanks to Jia and Szehon for the quick turn-around getting this done! > > On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 2:37 PM Jia Yu > wrote: >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Thanks for putting this together! >

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (binding) Thanks to Jia and Szehon for the quick turn-around getting this done! On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 2:37 PM Jia Yu wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks for putting this together! > > Jia Yu > > On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 2:09 PM Szehon Ho wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> As discussed briefly i

Re: [VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

+1 (non-binding) Thanks for putting this together! Jia Yu On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 2:09 PM Szehon Ho wrote: > Hi everyone, > > As discussed briefly in > https://lists.apache.org/thread/ncj0xjh2ct5xvovn4tzc45lkm1wbmorq, there > is a minor clarification for geo type bounds that we want to get in f

[VOTE] Minor clarification for Geo Spec

Hi everyone, As discussed briefly in https://lists.apache.org/thread/ncj0xjh2ct5xvovn4tzc45lkm1wbmorq, there is a minor clarification for geo type bounds that we want to get in for finalizing V3 spec. We want to clarify the behavior of null/NaN coordinate values in geo objects. There can be many