<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    Dear Mar* and DAL,<br>
    <br>
    I agree, this Erratum does seem pretty harmless to me. Some of the
    existing SCS have already taken the liberty to adopt the VOTable
    version they want/need.<br>
    <br>
    Though I am no VOTable expert, I do not think of any VOTable 1.2+
    feature that would break existing SCS clients...maybe someone with
    more experience with VOTable or SCS client would think differently,
    and if so, please, speak up. Anyway, SCS being very simple, I do not
    expect a lot of bad surprises in the existing client implementations
    (which should already be able to deal easily with VOTable 1.2+).<br>
    <br>
    If in the same Erratum, I think it would also be OK to update the
    recommendation about the mime-type to use. Since it is a `SHOULD`
    and not a `MUST` it is however not a problem, according to me, to
    wait for the next version of SCS to change it.<br>
    <br>
    Cheers,<br>
    Grégory<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/11/2021 13:19, Molinaro, Marco
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFtRUxKH43LLKYTFiT3+eGHcPpvqbWefiq0YVi51eTkx9+dR7Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Dear
            Markus, Mark, DAL,</div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
          </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I
            took the liberty to draft the erratum:</div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
          </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><a
              href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/SCS-1_03-Err-2"
              moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/SCS-1_03-Err-2</a><br>
          </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
          </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I'll
            try to work a bit better on the impact assessment </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">(if
            you already have some numbers there it would help).</div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I
            remember many services already returned VOTable-1.3.</div>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Also
            the rationale might need some rewording.</div>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">I
            wonder if (same erratum, w/ title change) we can </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">also
            clarify the mime-type there (same block of </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">sentences),
            maybe simply pointing to the VOTable </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">specification
            directly.</div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
          </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">The
            above erratum is freely modifiable and, if/when</div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">better
            agreed, I'll copy it also on the relevant </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">github
            repo issue for the future version.</div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace"><br>
          </div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">Cheers</div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace">   
            Marco</div>
        </div>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno mer 17 nov 2021
            alle ore 12:18 Mark Taylor &lt;<a
              href="mailto:m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk"
              moz-do-not-send="true">m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk</a>&gt; ha
            scritto:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I think such an erratum
            sounds OK.<br>
            <br>
            On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Markus Demleitner wrote:<br>
            <br>
            &gt; Dear DAL WG,<br>
            &gt; <br>
            &gt; Since I once again ran into an annoyance in connection
            with SCS's<br>
            &gt; instistance on VOTable 1.1 (you can't have datalink
            blocks on SCS<br>
            &gt; because VOTable 1.1 can't have GROUP-s in RESOURCE-s as
            required by<br>
            &gt; Datalink):  at the Ops session of the last interop, it
            sounded like<br>
            &gt; nobody seriously expected SCS services any more to
            honour that<br>
            &gt; requirement.  I'd certainly advocate such a stance, as
            I believe<br>
            &gt; there is no operational reason for it any more
            (meaning: nothing in<br>
            &gt; actual use will break if we drop it).<br>
            &gt; <br>
            &gt; Now, if indeed nobody really expects VOTable 1.1 to
            come out of SCS<br>
            &gt; any more: Can't we write an erratum to SCS that just
            drops this<br>
            &gt; single thing?  True, we've been labouring with a larger
            update on<br>
            &gt; SCS, but that work is tough going for a number of
            reasons, and,<br>
            &gt; frankly, I can't see that coming around for another
            year at the very<br>
            &gt; least.<br>
            &gt; <br>
            &gt; So... would anyone speak up against such an erratum,
            even though it<br>
            &gt; perhaps stretches a bit the notion of "erratum"?<br>
            &gt; <br>
            &gt;         -- Markus<br>
            &gt; <br>
            <br>
            --<br>
            Mark Taylor  Astronomical Programmer  Physics, Bristol
            University, UK<br>
            <a href="mailto:m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk" target="_blank"
              moz-do-not-send="true">m.b.taylor@bristol.ac.uk</a>       
              <a href="http://www.star.bristol.ac.uk/~mbt/"
              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.star.bristol.ac.uk/~mbt/</a><br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br clear="all">
        <div><br>
        </div>
        -- <br>
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
          <div dir="ltr">
            <div>
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div><font face="monospace">Marco Molinaro</font></div>
                  <div><font face="monospace">INAF - Istituto Nazionale
                      di AstroFisica</font></div>
                  <div><font face="monospace">Osservatorio Astronomico
                      di Trieste</font></div>
                  <div><font face="monospace">email <a
                        href="mailto:marco.molinaro@inaf.it"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">marco.molinaro@inaf.it</a></font></div>
                  <div><span style="font-family:monospace">tel. [+39]
                      333 33 20 564 / 040 3199 152</span><br>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>