W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > February 2016

Re: CSV on the Web Primer ready for comments

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:19:15 +0000
Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F72FC4A9-AF79-4B4E-A5B1-368410D055FB@jenitennison.com>
To: Yakov Shafranovich <yakov@noom.com>
Hi Yakov,

Thanks for taking a look and taking the time to comment :)

> On 12 Feb 2016, at 00:18, Yakov Shafranovich <yakov@noom.com> wrote:
> Sections 1.2 and 6.6, regarding locating a metadata file. This
> document recommends a "-metadata.json" file as the default in the same
> directory, however the tabular data model spec, in section 5, provides
> a list of options in a specific precedence order. This is the third
> option, end of 5.3.

Yes, but it’s the one that we anticipate people will most easily use. For the initial examples this seemed like the right place to start.

Your comment did make me realise I hadn’t described using the Link header though, so I’ve added this in.

> Section 1 - maybe it would make sense to provide a reference to
> section 6.6 regarding non-standard CSV here? I would think that
> logical step after locating the file in section 1.2 would be to parse
> the CSV.

Good idea, added.

> Now I personally like what it says in the primer, but I am not sure if
> we need to indicate the conflict here.
> Section 1.2, regarding the MIME type - do we need to reference the
> IANA registration?

The only thing I could see to reference is http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/csvm+json and unless you’re very technically minded (which I don’t expect readers of the Primer to be) then I don’t think that gives you any particularly useful information.

> Section 6.6 - regarding RFC 4180 - "However, this is an informational
> specification and it's not uncommon for applications to deviate from
> it." - I don't know whether this part is true or not since we don't
> have any kind of large scale analytics on existing files. Maybe this
> can be reworded as "However, this is an informational specification
> and not a formal standard. Therefore, applications may deviate from
> it".


See https://github.com/w3c/csvw/pull/812 for the changes - if you could let me know if they’re OK that would be great.

Thanks again,

Jeni Tennison

Received on Saturday, 13 February 2016 17:19:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 13 February 2016 17:19:43 UTC