December 2014 - dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

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

when is the separator expression evaluated?
by Mike Beckerle 19 Dec '14

19 Dec '14

Jessie Chab came up with this interesting case. I am hoping someone else remembers somewhere in the spec where this order of evaluation issue is taken up in detail. Consider: <element name="e2"> <sequence separator="|" separatorPosition="infix"> <element name="seps" minOccurs="3" maxOccurs="3"/> <element name="data" maxOccurs='10'> <sequence separator="{ /e2/seps[dfdl:occursIndex()] }"> <element name="num" maxOccurs='10' /> </sequence> </element> </sequence> </element> So we first parse 3 strings separated by a pipe. After that's parsed, lets assume our infoset looks like this: <e2> <seps>;</seps> <seps>-</seps> <seps>#</seps> </e2> After that we will have some 'data' elements (separated by pipes) which each have a sequence of 'num' elements. The question is what are the valid separators of the 'num' elements. I see two potential interpretations. 1) The separator is evaluated once per 'data' element; occursIndex evaluates to index in the 'data' array; valid data might look something like: ;|-|#|a;b;c;d|e-f-g-h|i#j#k#l Note that this means the size of the data array must be less than or equal to the size of the seps array (though that could be worked around using mod 3 arithmetic.) 2) Everytime we need to look for a separator between a num element, we reevaluate the separator expression. This means the occursIndex() references the index in the 'num' array, and so valid data might look something like: ;|-|#|a;b-c#d|e;f-g#h|i;j-k#l Note that this means the size of the num array must be less than or equal to the size of the seps array. I recall we were considering an argument to dfdl:occursIndex() to make exactly this kind of issue clear. I believe we decided against it, as we weren't able to pin down the semantics quite clearly. E.g., in the above, how would you add an argument to the dfdl:occursIndex(...) call that points to the num array, which isn't even in scope at that point? I know we say somewhere in the spec that separator can be defined, in say, the default format of some other schema file. It can be an expression, and that expression isn't evaluated until some sequence which has that separator in scope. Which means the expression can refer to path steps and such that are meaningless at the point where it appears lexically, but will be meaningful for a sequence where that separator expression is in scope. But this problem is slightly different. The question is whether the evaluation is per-item of the sequence, or once for the sequence. ...mikeb 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>

3 4

Re: [DFDL-WG] Binary decimal virtual point - unparsing behaviour
by Steve Hanson 10 Dec '14

10 Dec '14

Sorry, but I need a clarification on this. Spec says ""When unparsing a binary number (packed decimal or twos-complement) and excess precision is supplied in the Infoset no rounding occurs. It is a processing error."" Technically, precision is the number of digits, and trailing zeros are significant even after a decimal point. So is it a processing error if I supply an infoset decimal value of 123. 990 and a BDVP of 2? While this can be serialized to an integer, the original decimal has excess precision. Similarly for an infoset decimal value of 12300.0 and a BDVP of -2. This can be serialized to an integer, but the original decimal has excess precision. What this amounts to is whether we give a processing error a) whenever the infoset supplies excess precision, or b) only when the excess precision results in a decimal that can't be converted into an integer. 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 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 09/12/2014 17:45 Subject: Re: Binary decimal virtual point - unparsing behaviour DFDL WG agreed that this is a processing error. http://redmine.ogf.org/issues/249 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 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 05/12/2014 11:05 Subject: Binary decimal virtual point - unparsing behaviour I am not finding anywhere in the DFDL spec that says explicitly what happens during unparsing when a decimal value is given to the unparser, and its rep is binary, and the BDVP is not sufficient to remove the decimal point from the value. This is surely a processing error, because the spec states in section 13.7.1 "When unparsing a binary number (packed decimal or twos-complement) and excess precision is supplied in the Infoset no rounding occurs. It is a processing error." 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 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

Re: [DFDL-WG] Erratum 2.100 (was Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with lengths given by expressions)
by Mike Beckerle 10 Dec '14

10 Dec '14

Idea 1: Just provide an infoset member [contentLength] which would allow one to get and (when unparsing) set the content length. This would provide the "sticky" content length memory that people are seeking when they say they want data to round-trip. If the same infoset object is parsed and then unparsed, the existence of this [contentLength] member provides the memory of the content length from the parse. An outputValueCalc could meaningfully ask for dfdl:contentLength() which would return the value of this member. If unset, then when unparsing the value of this member can be defined to be the dfdl:valueLength() of the infoset value. Idea 2: Per our discussion on the call, I think we are trying to get two behaviors into the same length kind, and we can't have it both ways. So I am fine if we say lengthKind 'explicit' evaluates the expression both parsing and unparsing. I would suggest new lengthKind 'explicitParseOnly' evaluates the expression only when parsing. When this is used, an outputValueCalc would be needed to compute the length value and unparse the representation of it. That calculation would likely need to refer to the dfdl:valueLength() of the element whose length needs to be stored. Idea 3: An alternative would be to introduce property dfdl:unparseContentLength which is an integer constant, or an expression, or one of three special enum values. When dfdl:unparseContentLength='useLength' then it would be the same value as the length (same constant, or computed by evaluating the same expression). Or if dfdl:unparseContentLength='useValueLength' would mean that the length is equivalent to writing dfdl:unparseContentLength='{ dfdl:valueLength(., LU) }', where LU is the length units of the element that is the first argument). Nothing would be automatically saving out the explicitly computed length, so an outputValueCalc would need to be able to get at the dfdl:valueLength or dfdl:contentLength - which would return the value of the dfdl:unparseContentLength) A thought: perhaps we really only need the enum values, and not the ability to specify constants or expressions? In that case I'd suggest the property have the "policy" suffix on the name, i.e., dfdl:unparseContentLengthPolicy. Other possible name choices for this property: dfdl:explicitLengthKindUnparsePolicy or dfdl:lengthKindExplicitUnparsePolicy. I guess we get our choice of whether we add new length kinds along with 'explicit' and we define lengthKind 'explicit' to be one of these behaviors, or we add this enum policy property to add additional meaning when the lengthKind is 'explicit'. The difference of the two is taste and style I think. 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> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: > This is the email thread that discussed the behaviour of lengthKind > 'explicit' where length is an expression, when unparsing. > > Erratum 2.100 had been raised and stated that this is an example of a > variable length, and behaves like lengthKind 'prefixed'. The discussion > below was around whether this captured all the use cases and should the > dfdl:length expression be evaluated during unparsing in order to obtain a > specified length to which the value could be padded (or truncated) in the > same way as a fixed length. The conclusion was that the expression should > not be evaluated. This is consistent with occursCount - the expression is > not evaluated on unparsing. > > (There was a public comment on this area but it was just observing that > the spec had not been fully updated to reflect 2.100) > > The use cases are numbered in the discussion below 1) to 4), with examples. > Updated to reflect function name changes. > > The original proposal is also below, which was not adopted. > > However, an issue is that IBM DFDL already implements use case 1) by > evaluating the expression on unparsing. I discovered this when I came to > change the code to ensure 2.100 behaviour was followed. It is therefore > likely that there are users who are relying on this behaviour in IBM DFDL. > > Coincidentally the same day I was asked by a user about the following use > case. User has BCD data with length prefix. He wants to parse the data, do > some processing then unparse the data, but it is not acceptable for the > length of the data to change. Specifically, the BCD may start with 0s. When > this is parsed as a decimal or integer, it has the effect of losing leading > 0s so they need to be added back during unparsing. This is not possible > with lengthKind 'prefixed' and nor is it possible with lengthKind > 'expression' with erratum 2.100. User is currently treating the element as > a 'prefixed' hexBinary blob to preserve the leading 0s. While this works > for his use case, I am worried that the blob solution won't always be > appropriate. > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > Architect, *IBM DFDL* > <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/se-dfdl/index.html> > Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > IBM SWG, Hursley, UK > *smh(a)uk.ibm.com* <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 > ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 08/12/2014 15:53 ----- > > From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM > To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org > Date: 08/01/2013 18:06 > Subject: Fw: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with > lengths given by expressions > ------------------------------ > > > Did not adopt the proposal below, and errata 2.100 remains as documented. > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) > Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > IBM SWG, Hursley, UK > *smh(a)uk.ibm.com* <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 > ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 08/01/2013 18:05 ----- > > From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM > To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, > Date: 08/01/2013 14:44 > Subject: Re: Fw: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation > with lengths given by expressions > ------------------------------ > > > If we had the following we would have three behaviours which I think would > cover the identified use cases. > > a) dfdl:lengthKind = "explicit", dfdl:length is an integer => length is > specified on parsing & unparsing > > b) dfdl:lengthKind = "explicit", dfdl:length is an expression => length is > specified on parsing & unparsing (expression must evaluate) > - use cases 1) & 2) below > - Mike's scenario where length is specified externally > > c) dfdl:lengthKind = "expression" (*new*), dfdl:length must be an > expression => length is specified on parsing, but variable on unparsing > (expression not evaluated) > - new enum > - use case 3) below > - gives the erratum 2.100 behaviour > - matches occursCountKind 'expression' behaviour > > Alternatively we leave errata 2.100 as it is and for Mike's scenario the > application must do the padding before it passes the infoset values to the > unparser. > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) > Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > IBM SWG, Hursley, UK > *smh(a)uk.ibm.com* <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 > > > > From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM > To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, > Date: 11/12/2012 10:36 > Subject: Fw: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with > lengths given by expressions > ------------------------------ > > > The email thread which provided the material for the discussion which led > to: > > *2.100**. Section 12.3.1. State that when unparsing an element with > lengthKind ‘explicit’ and where length is an expression, then the data in > the Infoset is treated as variable length and not fixed length. The > behaviour is the same as lengthKind ‘prefixed’. * > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) > Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > IBM SWG, Hursley, UK > *smh(a)uk.ibm.com* <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 > ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 16/11/2012 16:04 ----- > > From: Tim Kimber/UK/IBM@IBMGB > To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, > Date: 11/09/2012 12:39 > Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with > lengths given by expressions > Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org > ------------------------------ > > > > Good point. The problem is that lengthKind-'explicit' is being used for > two things: > a) a length that is static > b) a length that is calculated > ...so the DFDL serializer must assume that the expression needs to be > evaluated. > > For occursCountKind we have separate values for 'fixed' and 'expression'. > If we did not, then occursCountKind would have the same problem except that > it would affect defaulting rather than padding. > > regards, > > Tim Kimber, DFDL Team, > Hursley, UK > Internet: kimbert(a)uk.ibm.com > Tel. 01962-816742 > Internal tel. 37246742 > > > > > From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB > To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, > Date: 11/09/2012 12:27 > Subject: [DFDL-WG] Action 183 - chicken-and-egg situation with > lengths given by expressions > Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org > ------------------------------ > > > > This mail is on the expected behaviour of the DFDL unparser when writing > out a 'data' element the length of which is held in an earlier 'len' > element. > > There are several scenarios, some straightforward and some that exhibit a > chicken-and-egg behaviour. The principle of what happens is understood, > the action is to make sure that the behaviour is explained in enough detail > in the spec to enable implementations to be consistent. (Note - IBM DFDL > does not yet support outputVaueCalc so has not hit this yet). > > Scenarios follow. The 'data' element shown is simple, but the same > principles apply if it is complex. > > 1) 'len' is set from infoset > > - 'len' can be set in augmented infoset > - No issue as 'data's length expression may be evaluated > > <xsd:element name="message1"> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:sequence> > <xsd:element name="len" type="xsd:int" > dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:length="2" /> > <xsd:element name="data" type="xsd:string" > dfdl:length="{/message1/len}" > dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" /> > </xsd:sequence> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > > 2) 'len' is set using outputValueCalc with fixed expression > > - When 'len's outputValueCalc is encountered, it can be evaluated then and > there > - 'len' can be set in augmented infoset > - No issue as 'data's length expression may be evaluated > > <xsd:element name="message1"> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:sequence> > <xsd:element name="len" type="xsd:int" > dfdl:outputValueCalc="{10}" dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" > dfdl:length="2" /> > <xsd:element name="data" type="xsd:string" > dfdl:length="{/message1/len}" > dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" /> > </xsd:sequence> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > > 3) 'len' is set using outputValueCalc with reference 'data' (unpadded) > > - When 'len's outputValueCalc is encountered, it can not yet be evaluated > as it depends on the length of 'data' > - 'len' can not yet be set in augmented infoset > - Problem as 'data's length expression can not be evaluated > - But we do know the unpadded length of 'data' so 'len's outputValueCalc > can now be evaluated > - In turn this means that 'data's length expression can now be evaluated > > <xsd:element name="message1"> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:sequence> > <xsd:element name="len" type="xsd:int" > > dfdl:outputValueCalc="{dfdl:valueLength(/message1/data)}" > dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:length="2" /> > <xsd:element name="data" type="xsd:string" > dfdl:length="{/message1/len}" > dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" /> > </xsd:sequence> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > > 4) 'len' is set using outputValueCalc with reference 'data' (padded) > > - When 'len's outputValueCalc is encountered, it can not yet be evaluated > as it depends on the length of 'data' > - 'len' can not yet be set in augmented infoset > - Problem as 'data's length expression can not be evaluated > - We don't know the padded length of 'data' because we don't know 'len' > - *Problem*: 'data's length expression can never be evaluated > > <xsd:element name="message1"> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:sequence> > <xsd:element name="len" type="xsd:int" > > dfdl:outputValueCalc="{dfdl:contentLength(/message1/data)}" > dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:length="2" /> > <xsd:element name="data" type="xsd:string" > dfdl:length="{/message1/len}" > dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" /> > </xsd:sequence> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > > > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) > Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > IBM SWG, Hursley, UK > *smh(a)uk.ibm.com* <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 > > > > From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM > To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org > Date: 04/09/2012 17:31 > Subject: Fw: Behaviour for lengthKind 'endOfparent' is still not > fully specified > ------------------------------ > > > DFDL WG call 4th Sept 2012: > > 1) Agreed that for binary data, only xs:hexBinary and packed/BCD allowed > to have endOfParent > > 2) Agreed this is the correct behaviour when filling to a known length > > 3) Agreed this is the correct behaviour when filling to a known length > > 4) Agreed this is the correct behaviour when filling to a known length > > It was noted that lengthKind 'explicit' on the parent may not result in a > known length if the length is an expression. This is an example of a more > general chicken-and-egg situation with lengths given by expressions, for > which outputValueCalc and DFDL functions unpaddedLength() were added can be > used. Action raised to ensure that the behaviour of an implementation is > fully defined by the spec. > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) > Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > IBM SWG, Hursley, UK > *smh(a)uk.ibm.com* <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 > ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 04/09/2012 17:24 ----- > > From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM > To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> > Date: 04/09/2012 14:08 > Subject: Behaviour for lengthKind 'endOfparent' is still not fully > specified > ------------------------------ > > > Noted when I reviewed latest spec - endOfParent and unparsing is not fully > thought through. > > The spec today says that I can use endOfParent with binary data. There is > a restriction in section 12.3.8, but it only applies when an element is > endOfParent *and* its parent is lengthKind delimited. > > There are a couple of cases to consider: > > 1) Binary data of restricted length (see list in other email "proposed > clarification/narrowing - delimited binary data should decimal"). I don't > think it makes sense to allow these. We don't allow these binary reps for > delimited. > > 2) Text data of variable length when unparsing. Box scenario. If the data > in the infoset is shorter than the space in the box, what we do? I think > we should pad to box length with appropriate padChar, according to > justification, as that is effectively a 'specified length'. Error if > textPadKind is 'none'. Use parent's lengthUnits. > > 3) HexBinary data of variable length when unparsing. Box scenario. If the > data in the infoset is shorter than the space in the box, what we do? I > think we should right-pad to box length with fill byte, as that is > effectively a 'specified length'. > > 4) Packed/BCD binary data of variable length when unparsing. Box scenario. > If the data in the infoset is shorter than the space in the box, what we > do? I think we should pad to box length with zero bytes, according to > justification, as that is effectively a 'specified length'. (Must be zero > bytes and not fill byte as must be numeric in order to be parsed). > > In relation to 2 - 4, note that lengthKind 'endOfParent' can only be used > with a parent lengthKind of 'explicit', 'pattern', 'prefixed' or > 'endOfParent' or a choice with choiceLengthKind 'explicit', so the box > scenario when unparsing therefore occurs only when lengthKind is 'explicit' > or choiceLengthKind is 'explicit' - these are the cases when the length is > known. Also note that when there are nested 'endOfParent' elements (which > is allowed) then all padding must be done on the simple element (ie, the > innermost element), to ensure that what is output can be parsed. > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) > Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > IBM SWG, Hursley, UK > *smh(a)uk.ibm.com* <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 > > 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 > -- > dfdl-wg mailing list > dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org > *https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg* > <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 > > 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 >

3 2

Invitation: DFDL Working Group Call (13 Jan 16:00 GMT in IBM Hursley DE3S09)
by Steve Hanson 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

OGF DFDL WG weekly call dial-in details. Passcode for Participants: 5381214 Canada Toll-Free 888-426-6840 China Toll-Free 10-800-711-1071 CHINA NETCOM GROUP USERS China Toll-Free 10-800-110-0996 CHINA TELECOM SOUTH USERS France Toll-Free 0800-94-0558 Germany Toll-Free 0800-000-1018 India Toll-Free 000-800-100-1176 Ireland Toll-Free 1-800-943-427 Israel Toll-Free 1-809-417-783 United Kingdom Caller Paid 0-20-30596451 United Kingdom Toll-Free 0800-368-0638 USA Caller Paid 215-861-6239 USA Toll-Free 888-426-6840 Other international numbers available - e-mail smh(a)uk.ibm.com. OGF DFDL Home: http://www.ogf.org/dfdl Redmine DFDL: http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/dfdl-wg DFDL Getting Started: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/se-dfdl/ DFDL 1.0 Spec: http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.207.pdf

1 0

Invitation: DFDL Working Group Call (6 Jan 16:00 GMT in IBM Hursley DE3S09)
by Steve Hanson 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

OGF DFDL WG weekly call dial-in details. Passcode for Participants: 5381214 Canada Toll-Free 888-426-6840 China Toll-Free 10-800-711-1071 CHINA NETCOM GROUP USERS China Toll-Free 10-800-110-0996 CHINA TELECOM SOUTH USERS France Toll-Free 0800-94-0558 Germany Toll-Free 0800-000-1018 India Toll-Free 000-800-100-1176 Ireland Toll-Free 1-800-943-427 Israel Toll-Free 1-809-417-783 United Kingdom Caller Paid 0-20-30596451 United Kingdom Toll-Free 0800-368-0638 USA Caller Paid 215-861-6239 USA Toll-Free 888-426-6840 Other international numbers available - e-mail smh(a)uk.ibm.com. OGF DFDL Home: http://www.ogf.org/dfdl Redmine DFDL: http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/dfdl-wg DFDL Getting Started: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/se-dfdl/ DFDL 1.0 Spec: http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.207.pdf

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call Minutes 2014-12-09
by Steve Hanson 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Please find minutes from the above call at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13380?download= Next call Jan 6th 2015. 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

Cancelled: DFDL Working Group Call
by Steve Hanson 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Steve unavailable

1 0

Re: [DFDL-WG] Binary decimal virtual point - unparsing behaviour
by Steve Hanson 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

DFDL WG agreed that this is a processing error. http://redmine.ogf.org/issues/249 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 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 05/12/2014 11:05 Subject: Binary decimal virtual point - unparsing behaviour I am not finding anywhere in the DFDL spec that says explicitly what happens during unparsing when a decimal value is given to the unparser, and its rep is binary, and the BDVP is not sufficient to remove the decimal point from the value. This is surely a processing error, because the spec states in section 13.7.1 "When unparsing a binary number (packed decimal or twos-complement) and excess precision is supplied in the Infoset no rounding occurs. It is a processing error." 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 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

Re: [DFDL-WG] Binary decimal virtual point - name wrong
by Steve Hanson 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Will be corrected. http://redmine.ogf.org/issues/249 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 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 04/12/2014 10:55 Subject: Binary decimal virtual point - name wrong The correct name of this property is dfdl:binaryDecimalVirtualPoint. There are several places in the spec where this is mis-named: - 13.7.1.1: dfdl:binaryVirtualDecimalPoint - 22.2.1: dfdl:decimalVirtualPoint (x2 in the "calendar" section) 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 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