<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;">Agreed, I know I'm heavily biased myself towards a little corner of tech.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">PS: I raised the issue of the local headers in <a href="https://github.com/csaybar/ESA-zar-zip-decision/issues/5">https://github.com/csaybar/ESA-zar-zip-decision/issues/5</a>, if you want to follow.</div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, at 12:07, Michael Sumner wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style=""><p dir="ltr">Agree with all this, unfortunately xarray was a bit late with PR 9543 that provides a basis for implicit coordinates (and will hopefully feed down into Zarr), and knowing the difference from the low basis NetCDF provided.<br></p><p dir="ltr">There's a lot to it, but my read is that xarray is the new and way better NetCDF (and I mean really damn impressive and ambitious and general), but because it's born in python it missed a lot of really key geospatial foundations that we take for granted, and for various reasons don't flow well from rasterio through xarray .<br></p><p dir="ltr">I have long seen a need for some pretty serious cross discipline reviews, and many of those are happening but not always enough, especially with generational overwork and "novelty" burnout.<br></p><p dir="ltr"></p><div>Appreciate the discussion here a lot. <br></div><div> Cheers, Mike<br></div><p></p></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div></body></html>