Lifting 1.1 limit in SCS?

[Mark Taylor]

I think such an erratum sounds OK.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Markus Demleitner wrote:

> Dear DAL WG,
> 
> Since I once again ran into an annoyance in connection with SCS's
> instistance on VOTable 1.1 (you can't have datalink blocks on SCS
> because VOTable 1.1 can't have GROUP-s in RESOURCE-s as required by
> Datalink):  at the Ops session of the last interop, it sounded like
> nobody seriously expected SCS services any more to honour that
> requirement.  I'd certainly advocate such a stance, as I believe
> there is no operational reason for it any more (meaning: nothing in
> actual use will break if we drop it).
> 
> Now, if indeed nobody really expects VOTable 1.1 to come out of SCS
> any more: Can't we write an erratum to SCS that just drops this
> single thing?  True, we've been labouring with a larger update on
> SCS, but that work is tough going for a number of reasons, and,
> frankly, I can't see that coming around for another year at the very
> least.
> 
> So... would anyone speak up against such an erratum, even though it
> perhaps stretches a bit the notion of "erratum"?
> 
>         -- Markus
> 

--
Mark Taylor  Astronomical Programmer  Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk          http://www.star.bristol.ac.uk/~mbt/