Repository navigation
Conversation
…aiming an NGFF version
…with a footnote on compliance
This branch was successfully deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Minimal alternative to #75 — pick one of the two.
The compatibility matrix's NGFF column read "0.5 (
"0.5-dev-spatialdata")" etc., which reads as a compliance claim. This PR changes only that column: the header becomes "NGFF version string" (the term the same page already uses for this field) and each cell shows just the string the format records. Once a format complies with OME-Zarr 0.6, its row can say 0.6.No note, no other columns touched. #75 instead says what the metadata actually is ("0.5 + RFC-5 draft"), adds a note on the 0.6 aim and renames the
spatialdatawrites column.