Support groupChar for integer field type

[roll]

• fixes Support groupChar for integer type specs#498
• improves "default value" wording

---

Rationale

Group char character is often used with integers similar to numbers. There is no reason to have this property for numbers but not to have it for integers.

[nichtich]

The wording "This property does not have a default value" seems odd. I'd say it's just an optional property.

[roll]

@nichtich
Thanks for pointing it out! The problem is that all these properties are optional by definition. Initially, it has a remark that the default value is null, which is not fully correct (it's not defined but not null). So I'm not sure how to phrase it.

My idea that we will go through wording on the next iteration as the project has a separate "Improve technical language" task while, currently, we need to make principal change decisions which require attention of the whole WG

[roll]

BEING VOTED by WG (3/9)

cc @sapetti9 if we need to clarify acceptance criteria after adding a "neutral" voting option

[roll]

@pschumm
@khusmann
@ezwelty
@PietrH
@nichtich
@peterdesmet
Would you consider changing (or adding) your vote to yes as currently we can't accept this change with 3 votes are missing? In my opinion this feature is no-brainer and honestly must-have that was missing for some weird reasons as without group char for integers it's just not possible to have any number like 1,000, 1,200,000 etc which is pretty common for data publishing in many countries

[pschumm]

@pschumm Would you consider changing (or adding) your vote to yes as currently we can't accept this change with 3 votes are missing?

Changed my vote to yes (not sure at the moment why I hadn't voted that way before on this). Agreed it's both necessary and consistent.

[roll]

Thanks!

ACCEPTED by the WG (6/9)