Replies: 2 comments 5 replies
-
zarr-python currently implements only an earlier draft of the zarr v3 specification, which is quite different from the finalized v3 spec. I think PRs to make zarr-python conforming with the v3 spec would be welcome, though. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
5 replies
-
As mentioned by @jbms, Zarr-python does not currently have a V3 spec compliant implementation. We are about to kick off a focused effort to fix that! #1480. We can keep this thread up to date as that process moves forward. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
First, thanks for this community's work on Zarr!
I've been using both zarr-python and zarrita to experiment with V3 data and noticed some differences in the output paths (MVCE below), which seems to reflect some of the more recent changes made to the V3 spec (e.g., zarr-developers/zarr-specs#175). Given that the V3 support is experimental, I wasn't sure if this would be an appropriate issue. My specific question is whether a PR would be welcome for removing the
/root
prefix for paths for V3 data?I'm also hoping someone could clarify whether this restriction could be looser after zarr-developers/zarr-specs#177?:
zarr-python/zarr/_storage/store.py
Lines 212 to 215 in 4132f36
Zarr
Zarrita
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions