September 2013 - dfdl-wg

still no need for fn:error
by Mike Beckerle 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

Here's the example as suggested by Jonathan of how to issue an error that I previously was suggesting needed fn:error. I'm convinced this is sufficient and we can avoid the need for fn:error now. <xs:element name="magic_number" type="ex:uint32" dfdl:byteOrder="bigEndian"> <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="*http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/*<http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/> "> <dfdl:assert test="{ (xs:unsignedInt(.) eq *dfdl:hUInt('0xa1b2c3d4')*) | (xs:unsignedInt(.) eq *dfdl:hUInt('0xd4c3b2a1')*) }" message="{ fn:concat( 'Magic number ', dfdl:hexBinary(dfdl:unsignedInt(.)), ' was not 0xA1B2C3D4 (for bigEndian) or 0xD4C3B2A1 (for littleEndian).' }" /> <dfdl:setVariable ref="ex:bOrd">{ xs:unsignedInt(.) }<dfdl:setVariable> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> </xs:element> -- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com

2 11

action 224: add section for implementation defined limits
by Cranford, Jonathan W. 24 Oct '13

24 Oct '13

All, Action item 224 was raised two weeks ago during the WG call. 224 Add section for implementation defined limits (All) 3/9: Several places in the spec cite this, should be grouped. Currently partially listed in section 2.6. Also note distinction between 'implementation defined' and 'implementation dependent'. Check spec for correct usage. Resolve during public comment. The action item was created based on a comment I made during the call, so I thought it'd be good to provide an example of the distinction I was trying to make. The W3C XProc specification does a great job of differentiating between implementation-defined and implementation-dependent features, with a convenient list of each in the appendix. Appendix A (http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#conformance) contains the following text. Conformant processors must implement all of the features described in this specification except those that are explicitly identified as optional. Some aspects of processor behavior are not completely specified; those features are either implementation-dependent<http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#dt-implementation-dependent> or implementation-defined<http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#dt-implementation-defined>. [Definition: An implementation-dependent feature is one where the implementation has discretion in how it is performed. Implementations are not required to document or explain how implementation-dependent<http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#dt-implementation-dependent> features are performed.] [Definition: An implementation-defined feature is one where the implementation has discretion in how it is performed. Conformant implementations must document how implementation-defined<http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/#dt-implementation-defined> features are performed.] Section A.1 then lists all the implementation-defined features, and section A.2 lists all the implementation-dependent features. I think the XProc spec provides a great example to follow on two counts. First, it formally distinguishes between implementation-defined and implementation-dependent features. The choice of terms isn't nearly as important as the distinction itself, of course: implementations must document how certain features are implemented. In the DFDL realm, section 2.6 lists some implementation limits which always constitute schema definition errors; surely these are the types of details that must be documented by any DFDL implementation. Using terminology such as "implementation-defined" and "implementation-dependent" would flag these types of documentation requirements for implementations within the specification. Second, all the implementation-defined and implementation-dependent features are listed in one place in the specification. I think doing the same in the DFDL spec would provide a great resource for DFDL implementers. Comments? If everyone agrees, I don't mind taking the action to search through the document looking for candidates for inclusion in such a list. Sincerely, -- Jonathan W. Cranford Senior Information Systems Engineer The MITRE Corporation (http://www.mitre.org)

2 3

public comment "Non-deterministic outcome of setVariable evaluations"
by Mike Beckerle 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

Some email discussion before posting to the public comment forum may be helpful for this issue. Right now the rules say that all dfdl:newVariableInstance annotations for a schema component are always executed before any setVariable annotations. This is ok. One can introduce an extra sequence in order to allow a setVariable to occur before a newVariableInstance. (Personally: I would like to get a warning from my DFDL implementation if I write statement annotations at one annotation point that are not in the canonical order described in Errata 3.25) The problem is that the order of execution of multiple setVariable statements at one annotation point, or similarly, of multiple newVariableInstance at one annotation point, is not specified. This is what will get users into trouble. If there are multiple newVariableInstance annotations, then the order is important to understanding when exactly a new instance comes into scope, and whether the prior-scope's value for that variable can be read as part of the default value expressions. Consider this: <dfdl:newVariableInstance ref="save">{ $delim }</dfdl:newVariableInstance> <dfdl:newVariableInstance ref="delim">{ ../hdr/d }</dfdl:newVariableInstance> We need to specify whether $delim in the first annotation is referring to that variable before the new instance is created, or after. I suggest that before is more intuitive, as that is lexical order. Note however, that this means: <dfdl:newVariableInstance ref="prefix">{ fn:concat($prefix, "_", fn:name()) }</dfdl:newVariableInstance> is allowed and is not recursion. The expression is referring to $prefix from the enclosing scope, and then initializing a new instance of $prefix for the scope contained by this schema component. The same logic applies to dfdl:setVariable annotations. The order needs to be controlled by the user. I suggest the fix for this issue is as follows: Errata 3.20, 3.21, and Errata 3.25 must be modified (and the corresponding sections of the spec) For errata 3.20, and errata 3.21 the sentence: "However, the order of execution among them is not specified. Schema authors can insert sequences to control the timing of evaluation of statements more precisely." is replaced by: "The order of execution is specified in errata 3.25." Errata 3.25 is modified. Numbered item 3 of both the first list and second list is replaced by: 3. dfdl:setVariable(s) - in lexical order Numbered item 2 of the second list is replaced by: 2. dfdl:newVariableInstance(s) - in lexical order These two paragraphs are added below the numbered lists to clarify what 'lexical order' means. The dfdl:setVariable annotations at any one annotation point of the schema are always executed in lexical order. However, dfdl:setVariable annotations can also be found in different annotation points that are combined into the resolved set of annotations for one schema component. In this case, the order of execution of the dfdl:setVariable statements from any one annotation point remains lexical, but it is unspecified what the order of execution is across dfdl:setVariable statements coming from different annotation points. The dfdl:newVariableInstance annotations at any one annotation point of the schema are always executed in lexical order. However, dfdl:newVariableInstance annotations can also be found in different annotation points that are combined into the resolved set of annotations for one schema component. In this case, the order of execution of the dfdl:newVariableInstance statements from any one annotation point remains lexical, but it is unspecified what the order of execution is across dfdl:newVariableInstance statements coming from different annotation points. ---------------------- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy<http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>

2 2

new public comment: byteOrder not sufficient. Need bitOrder.
by Mike Beckerle 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Please see http://redmine.ogf.org/boards/15/topics/43 This is a big stumbling block for us and our customers with the current draft. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy<http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>

2 2

OGF DFDL WG Call Minutes 2013-09-24
by Steve Hanson 25 Sep '13

25 Sep '13

Please find minutes from the above call at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13130?download= Public Comment The following set are now in Public Comment until 15th October. Revised DFDL 1.0 Specification: https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/117 DFDL Experience Document 1 (Spec Errata): https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/118 DFDL Experience Document 2 (Action 140): https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/119 Please download, review and create comments as necessary. Please note item 8 in the minutes which proposes how to flag a public comment as resolved. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL, Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2013-09-24
by Steve Hanson 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Please find agenda for call on Redmine at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13130?download= Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

Fw: questions on setVariable
by Steve Hanson 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

For discussion on today's WG call... Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 24/09/2013 14:09 ----- From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com>, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 11/09/2013 15:36 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable Mike, I have several email threads that track the original design discussion for action 186. You originally wrote down an algorithm for combining statement annotations into an ordered list, but then the next version scrapped that and proposed the current scheme. I think there must have been some reason for this? Are we just talking setVariable here, or also newVariableInstance and assert as well? If so would the ordering rules be the same within, and across, annotation points? A couple of users have asked about short form versions of statement annotations. Imposing an execution order is not compatible with this. This was discussed in one of the action 186 emails. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 11/09/2013 14:48 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable It is when there is more than one setVariable at one single annotation point that I believe they should definitely execute in lexical order. I am much less worried about across different annotation points that get resolved together which is what the Errata was clarifying. My preference would be this: If an element ref has 2 setVariable statements for variables A, B, and the element declaration has setVariable statements for variables X, Y, then ABXY, AXBY, AXYB, XYAB are all possible interleavings, but A is always before B, and X is always before Y so execution is always consistent with lexical order. I want to just clarify the hole we've left by not being tight enough about specifying the order of this evaluation of setVariables within or across annotation points in a resolved set. I can build a completely non-deterministic schema: <defineVariable name="x" defaultValue="1"/> <defineVariable name="y" defaultValue="2"/> <defineVariable name="z" defaultValue="0"/> <group name="coinFlip"/> <choice> <sequence> <annotation><appinfo> <dfdl:setVariable name="x" value="{ if ($y = 2) then 5/$z else 3 }"/>  <dfdl:setVariable name="y" value="1"/> </appinfo></annotation> <element name="nonLexicalOrder" type="string" dfdl:inputValueCalc="{ '' }"/> </sequence> <element name="lexicalOrder" type="string" dfdl:inputValueCalc="{ '' }"/> </choice> </group> The above group definition illustrates how we can test what order a particular implementation executes these setVariable statements. You get <lexicalOrder/> or <nonLexicalOrder/> depending on what the implementation does. It could even vary from run to run for one implementation if the implementation is using a hash implementation that is using different random seeds at different times. It could even vary within a run, if this group is reused several times in the schema. Now, why would somebody write this, I don't know, but it does illustrate the hole in the spec. Certainly it would be better if DFDL could not express things like this. computing x reads the value of y. If the assignment to y has not yet happened, then we get a processing error when we divide by zero. This can cause backtracking, and the schema will effectively dodge the SDE that is supposed to happen to prevent this sort of assignment-timing stuff. This doesn't fix the problem entirely. I think our current 'non-specification' of the precise order here even across annotation points was a bit of a cop-out. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: "I think the execution order needs to be specific within the annotations at one annotation point." The problem is that action 186 allowed scenarios like setVariable annotations simultaneously on an element ref, its global element and the element's simple type (*). So there is no longer 'one annotation point', there are multiple. That's when we formalised the concept of a 'resolved set of annotations' for a component, and stated that for all annotations of the same kind (**) in that set, the order of execution is not defined. We also state schema authors can insert sequences to provide more precise control over when annotations are executed. Several reasons for this. Is the lexical order of elements in appinfos, or of multiple appinfos, guaranteed in XSDL? If not then an editor could serialize appinfos or their content in any order. We also wanted to reserve the right to add explicit timing control in the future. And it made implementations easier. IBM DFDL 1.0.3 has been out in the field with this support since 1Q 2013. Tim, can you say what the execution order is for a resolved set of setVariables please? Or can we not tell because of the model? (*) Must be different variables, else SDE. (**) Asserts and discriminators with testKind 'pattern' are a different 'kind' from those with 'expression', for this purpose. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Suman Kalia <kalia(a)ca.ibm.com> To: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com>, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, "dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org>, Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 10/09/2013 19:23 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable Mike - In the use case hilited by Jonathan where 2 annotations are defined on the same point. I would suggest the execution order to be based on the lexical order i.e. the order in which annotations appear.. Suman Kalia IBM Canada Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead Tel: 905-413-3923 T/L 313-3923 Email: kalia(a)ca.ibm.com For info on Message broker http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.h… From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com>, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, "dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org> Date: 09/10/2013 02:14 PM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org If the first setVariable executes first, that will read variable baz, which will cause the second setVariable to SDE because you cannot set after the variable has been read. I believe this is the right semantics for this schema, because both these setVariable annotations are written at the same annotation point. If the second setVariable executes first, that will assign variable baz, which is OK, then when the first setVariable executes, it will get the value that was just assigned. While the spec says you shouldn't depend on this kind of ordering stuff, I think it is pretty unsatisfactory if the order is unspecified. Section 9.5 lays out the order of the different kinds of statement annotations relative to each other, but doesn't say what happens between two setVariable statements that appear at the same annotation point. I think the execution order needs to be specific within the annotations at one annotation point. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: 1) I'll let Tim comment more on this but a relative expression uses as its context the current element on the stack. So using '.' on a simple element or its type resolves to the simple element, and using '.' on a complex element or a group child (recursively) of a complex element resolves to the complex element. Same deal when using the '..' parent axis, so beware - as this example shows: <xs:element name="root"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="delim" type="xs:string"/> <xs:element name="body"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence dfdl:separator="{../delim}"> ...and not {../../delim} ! This is all implied by the way XPath works. XPath only knows about elements. 2) I don't see why Jonathan's example could give an SDE. The defineVariables will always be executed first. However the result is ambiguous, depending on the order each setVariable is executed, as 'bar' could end up as 'biff' or 'fooey'. "Schema authors can insert sequences to provide more precise control over when variables are set" - quote from section 9.5.3 (errata 3.25). 3) To Mike's comment, the order of execution of setVariable and newVariableInstance on the same annotation is strictly defined, see section 9.5 (errata 3.25) Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: "Cranford, Jonathan W." <jcranford(a)mitre.org>, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 10/09/2013 18:23 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org Those are both public-comment-class issues. The issue of what does "." mean in various places is interesting. It is referring to an infoset node, but how to explain exactly which one it is.... The out-of-order issue with evaluation that you mention is definitely an issue. The schema you gave will work or SDE depending on the order of evaluation of the statements and the language is not precise enough to say what the order is. I think the order of the setVariable and newVariableInstance statements at any annotation point, must be linear first to last. The order of setVariable and newVariableInstance combined into the resolved set of annotations, but from multiple annotation points (e.g., an element and a global type definition it references), those can be interleaved in any order. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Cranford, Jonathan W. < jcranford(a)mitre.org> wrote: These questions may go towards public comment if the answers aren't straight-forward. Section references are against latest editor's draft. · Section 7.9 - 5th paragraph after first example - "A dfdl:setVariable value expression may refer to the value of this element using a relative path value '.'. " Which element? If dfdl:setVariable is attached to a simpleType, then the "element" referred to here is the element of that type, correct? But when it's attached to group reference, sequence, or choice, is it the parent element which contains the group reference, sequence, or choice? · Section 7.9 - next-to-last paragraph: "However, the order of execution among them is not specified." Wouldn't this be ambiguous, then? <xs:schema> <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/"> <xs:defineVariable name="bar" /> <xs:defineVariable name="baz" defaultValue="biff"/> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> ... <xs:element name="foo"> <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/"> <xs:setVariable ref="bar" value="{$tns:baz}"/> <xs:setVariable ref="baz" value="fooey"/> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> </xs:element> ... </xs:schema> If the order of execution isn't specified, isn't it ambiguous whether tns:bar gets the value of "biff" (defaultValue of tns:baz) or "fooey"? Respectfully, -- Jonathan W. Cranford Senior Information Systems Engineer The MITRE Corporation (http://www.mitre.org) -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call Minutes 2013-09-17
by Steve Hanson 18 Sep '13

18 Sep '13

Please find minutes from the above call at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13123?download= Public Comment The following set are now in Public Comment until 15th October. Revised DFDL 1.0 Specification: https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/117 DFDL Experience Document 1 (Spec Errata): https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/118 DFDL Experience Document 2 (Action 140): https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/119 Please download, review and create comments as necessary. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL, Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

Fw: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3
by Steve Hanson 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

Investigation reveals that XML Schema 1.0 does not allow seconds in time zones anyway. So the spec and erratum 2.121 will be updated to state that for Z, ZZ, ZZZ no seconds are allowed. Public comment raised against spec - http://redmine.ogf.org/boards/15/topics/24. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 17/09/2013 17:48 ----- From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, Date: 17/09/2013 15:28 Subject: Fw: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 I think my suggestion of not supporting time zones with optional seconds has put us into an inconsistent place. I've just re-read the ICU SimpleDateFormat class entry for Z, reproduced below. I had not spotted that Z, Z, ZZZ now also imply optional seconds, and are equivalent to 'xxxx' which we said we don't support. Z 1..3 -0800 The ISO8601 basic format with hours, minutes and optional seconds fields. The format is equivalent to RFC 822 zone format (when optional seconds field is absent). This is equivalent to the "xxxx" specifier. 4 GMT-8:00 The long localized GMT format. This is equivalent to the "OOOO" specifier. 5 -08:00 -07:52:58 The ISO8601 extended format with hours, minutes and optional seconds fields. The ISO8601 UTC indicator "Z" is used when local time offset is 0. This is equivalent to the "XXXXX" specifier. We've always supported Z (as RFC 822) so we can't now drop Z 1..3. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 17/09/2013 15:21 ----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Date: 30/08/2013 00:25 Subject: Re: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 Made this change. Also, updated Errata 2.3 (Unsure about the references at the top of that errata description. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Agreed that the ICU symbol combinations below that include optional seconds will not be supported in DFDL 1.0. Erratum 2.121 will be updated. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: "Cranford, Jonathan W." <jcranford(a)mitre.org>, Suman Kalia < kalia(a)ca.ibm.com>, Tim Kimber/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 24/08/2013 04:04 Subject: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 One question - do we really need to support time zones with seconds? If we think this is not needed then we could drop ZZZZZ, xxxx, xxxxx, XXXX, XXXXX, and stick with standard ISO8601. I would be happy to remove these, and I have no clue the meaning or use of a time zone with seconds. I have edited in the other ICU calendar pattern review comments, but this is outstanding. Let's close on this on next WG call. Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

1 0

Fw: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3
by Steve Hanson 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

I think my suggestion of not supporting time zones with optional seconds has put us into an inconsistent place. I've just re-read the ICU SimpleDateFormat class entry for Z, reproduced below. I had not spotted that Z, Z, ZZZ now also imply optional seconds, and are equivalent to 'xxxx' which we said we don't support. Z 1..3 -0800 The ISO8601 basic format with hours, minutes and optional seconds fields. The format is equivalent to RFC 822 zone format (when optional seconds field is absent). This is equivalent to the "xxxx" specifier. 4 GMT-8:00 The long localized GMT format. This is equivalent to the "OOOO" specifier. 5 -08:00 -07:52:58 The ISO8601 extended format with hours, minutes and optional seconds fields. The ISO8601 UTC indicator "Z" is used when local time offset is 0. This is equivalent to the "XXXXX" specifier. We've always supported Z (as RFC 822) so we can't now drop Z 1..3. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 17/09/2013 15:21 ----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Date: 30/08/2013 00:25 Subject: Re: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 Made this change. Also, updated Errata 2.3 (Unsure about the references at the top of that errata description. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Agreed that the ICU symbol combinations below that include optional seconds will not be supported in DFDL 1.0. Erratum 2.121 will be updated. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: "Cranford, Jonathan W." <jcranford(a)mitre.org>, Suman Kalia < kalia(a)ca.ibm.com>, Tim Kimber/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 24/08/2013 04:04 Subject: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 One question - do we really need to support time zones with seconds? If we think this is not needed then we could drop ZZZZZ, xxxx, xxxxx, XXXX, XXXXX, and stick with standard ISO8601. I would be happy to remove these, and I have no clue the meaning or use of a time zone with seconds. I have edited in the other ICU calendar pattern review comments, but this is outstanding. Let's close on this on next WG call. Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

1 0