-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 117
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Reconsider data types #867
Comments
I agree it would be easier if these were discussed as subgroups. What would be the best forum for this? Call, discussions, grouping issues, etc.? |
Can we also include categorical / ordinal types as its own group? Right now they're implemented as constraints / extensions on other types, but I think deserve first-class discussion. (relevant issue: #844) |
In my opinion, the most pressing issue for v2 is
fields:
-name: value
type: number
We get into an undefined state when we need to export data into e.g. SQL because |
See also this comparison of SQL data types. |
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
The Table Schema tag lists several issues related to data types. These might better be discussed together. Subgroups may be:
date and times
datetime
withformat=default
support optional timezone offsets? #830numeric types
number.nanValues
,number.infValues
#644, Add decimal place constraint to number fields #641, bareNumber to interpret -$1000 as -1000 #609, SupportgroupChar
forinteger
type #498units
compound types
json
field type andjsonSchema
constraint support #640table
#410wkt
to field types #772, New propertycrs
#812 (may be related to units)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: