June 2016 - 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

Cancelled: OGF DFDL Working Group call
by Steve Hanson 17 Jun '16

17 Jun '16

Mike unable to make call

1 0

Re: [DFDL-WG] Fw: clarification or maybe restriction needed: delimited hexBinary question
by Steve Hanson 16 Jun '16

16 Jun '16

Mike Your example below should use dfdl:terminator not dfdl:separator but that does not materially change anything. I think it means that the data is raw bytes, no character decoding is happening at runtime. The delimiters are converted to bytes, and the scan is to find those bytes. Correct. However, that leaves off the ability to use delimiters with character class entities, like separator="年%WSP+;" since WSP+ one or more repeats of any of several whitespace characters. It can't just be converted to a sequence of bytes. The IBM DFDL scanner converts everything to bytes, including WSP+ and WSP* delimiters, even when matching characters, so the scan is purely byte-based. Originally this was so a scan handled raw byte entities and parent delimiters with different encodings. This was extended to handle the delimited binary elements erratum - the only difference is that bytes read from the input stream are not converted from an encoding. Regards Steve Hanson IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 16/06/2016 09:34 ----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 15/06/2016 21:41 Subject: [DFDL-WG] clarification or maybe restriction needed: delimited hexBinary question Sent by: "dfdl-wg" <dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org> In this example: <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:hexBinary" dfdl:lengthKind="delimited" dfdl:separator="年" dfdl:encoding="UTF-8" /> Note that 年 is 年 which requires 3 bytes in UTF-8: E5 B9 B4 The spec doesn't really say what happens here. It talks about scanning bcd and packed data for delimiters (I think the use case is TLOG format?), but doesn't really talk about what that means. I think it means that the data is raw bytes, no character decoding is happening at runtime. The delimiters are converted to bytes, and the scan is to find those bytes. However, that leaves off the ability to use delimiters with character class entities, like separator="年%WSP+;" since WSP+ one or more repeats of any of several whitespace characters. It can't just be converted to a sequence of bytes. I did not find a restriction in the DFDL spec on what the delimiters can contain when used for delimited binary data. E.g., only raw bytes or no char class entities. Perhaps there is such a restriction and I just didn't find it? If not, perhaps we need such a restriction, just to simplify implementor's lives, and avoid features nobody needs. Consider this: Easy implementation tricks like this don't generalize: <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:hexBinary" dfdl:lengthKind="delimited" dfdl:separator="å¹´" dfdl:encoding="iso-8859-1" /> The separator now contains the 3 bytes of the UTF-8 character, but as individual characters in iso-8859-1 where byte values and unicode codepoints are the same. It doesn't work because char class entities like WSP+ remain problematic. As a UTF-8 WSP+ allows repeats of any of the byte sequences corresponding to these unicode characters: U+0009-U+000D (Control characters) U+0020 SPACE U+0085 NEL U+00A0 NBSP U+1680 OGHAM SPACE MARK U+180E MONGOLIAN VOWEL SEPARATOR U+2000-U+200A (different sorts of spaces) U+2028 LSP U+2029 PSP U+202F NARROW NBSP U+205F MEDIUM MATHEMATICAL SPACE U+3000 IDEOGRAPHIC SPACE I can't express with separator, a repeating disjunction of the byte sequences corresponding to the above. Now, I think all this complexity adds no value for anyone. To avoid all this, I would propose these restrictions on delimited binary data 1) can only use SBCS encodings 2) no repeating char-class entities (WSP*, WSP+) are allowed. With those restrictions I believe the "trick" above of using an iso-8859-1 "decoder", and converting the delimiters into iso-8859-1 character sequences, can be made to work. Comments? ...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 -- 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

1 0

clarification or maybe restriction needed: delimited hexBinary question
by Mike Beckerle 15 Jun '16

15 Jun '16

In this example: <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:hexBinary" dfdl:lengthKind="delimited" dfdl:separator="年" dfdl:encoding="UTF-8" /> Note that 年 is 年 which requires 3 bytes in UTF-8: E5 B9 B4 The spec doesn't really say what happens here. It talks about scanning bcd and packed data for delimiters (I think the use case is TLOG format?), but doesn't really talk about what that means. I think it means that the data is raw bytes, no character decoding is happening at runtime. The delimiters are converted to bytes, and the scan is to find those bytes. However, that leaves off the ability to use delimiters with character class entities, like separator="年%WSP+;" since WSP+ one or more repeats of any of several whitespace characters. It can't just be converted to a sequence of bytes. I did not find a restriction in the DFDL spec on what the delimiters can contain when used for delimited binary data. E.g., only raw bytes or no char class entities. Perhaps there is such a restriction and I just didn't find it? If not, perhaps we need such a restriction, just to simplify implementor's lives, and avoid features nobody needs. Consider this: Easy implementation tricks like this don't generalize: <xs:element name="foo" type="xs:hexBinary" dfdl:lengthKind="delimited" dfdl:separator="å¹´" dfdl:encoding="iso-8859-1" /> The separator now contains the 3 bytes of the UTF-8 character, but as individual characters in iso-8859-1 where byte values and unicode codepoints are the same. It doesn't work because char class entities like WSP+ remain problematic. As a UTF-8 WSP+ allows repeats of any of the byte sequences corresponding to these unicode characters: U+0009-U+000D (Control characters) U+0020 SPACE U+0085 NEL U+00A0 NBSP U+1680 OGHAM SPACE MARK U+180E MONGOLIAN VOWEL SEPARATOR U+2000-U+200A (different sorts of spaces) U+2028 LSP U+2029 PSP U+202F NARROW NBSP U+205F MEDIUM MATHEMATICAL SPACE U+3000 IDEOGRAPHIC SPACE I can't express with separator, a repeating disjunction of the byte sequences corresponding to the above. Now, I think all this complexity adds no value for anyone. To avoid all this, I would propose these restrictions on delimited binary data 1) can only use SBCS encodings 2) no repeating char-class entities (WSP*, WSP+) are allowed. With those restrictions I believe the "trick" above of using an iso-8859-1 "decoder", and converting the delimiters into iso-8859-1 character sequences, can be made to work. Comments? ...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>

1 0

[DFDL]: Apply daffodil on S2G mission schemas
by Michele Zundo 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

Dear Steve/Mike, we have run some of our DFDL schema through the daffodil parser and identified 3 issues described in the attached document. The second is expected, but could you please review/comment the first and the last (in red in the text ? ) Thanks This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Michele

3 3

OGF DFDL WG Call Minutes 2016-06-07
by Steve Hanson 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

Please find minutes from the above call at https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13534?download= @Michele - please can you send to the WG a schema that shows your use of a regex in the path step of a DFDL expression ? 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 2016-05-24
by Steve Hanson 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

Please find agenda for call on Redmine at https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13534?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

unparser IS TOO a word
by Mike Beckerle 06 Jun '16

06 Jun '16

If wikipedia says it is, then it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparser 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>

1 0