March 2019 - dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

clarification needed: unparsing and hidden group choices and choices with dfdl:choiceDispatchKey
by Mike Beckerle 13 Dec '19

13 Dec '19

So interesting issue. Comes up as part of our experience implementing the advanced expression language features: hidden groups, and computed elements. We have hidden groups in DFDL. If a xs:choice is inside a hidden group, then by definition, when unparsing, elements corresponding to some branch of the choice are not in the Infoset. DFDL spec clearly states that dfdl:outputValueCalc is not allowed on the head of a choice branch. But elements inside hidden groups must have dfdl:outputValueCalc, or a default value, otherwise there's no way for them to be filled in as part of the augmented infoset. So the only way a choice can be inside a hidden group is if the head of the choice branches have default values. This is not sufficient. I do not think it was our intention to make hidden groups incapable of holding things complex enough to contain a choice. Rather, the point is to be able to hide things that have excess complexity needed only for parsing/unparsing, so that they need not appear in the final Infoset. So if a choice is allowed inside a hidden group, then a mechanism is needed by which when unparsing a choice branch is selected based on values of other parts of the Infoset, and then the elements of that branch are computed and added to the augmented infoset. Note that without hidden groups, this problem never arises, as the Infoset always has to take a position on choice branches by having an unambiguous element in it. There are 3 cases: 1. unparsing an xs:choice where for parsing, each branch has a discriminator, or is resolved by the simple "first successful parse" rule. 2. unparsing an xs:choice with dfdl:choiceDispatchKey 3. unparsing xs:choice with dfdl:initiatedContent='yes' For all cases, I suggest we must remove the restriction on dfdl:outputValueCalc being disallowed on choice branch head. For (1). First branch where the branch can be constructed successfully is added to the augmented infoset. This is a case where an unparse error is non-fatal, and causes a form of unparser backtracking through alternatives. Branches would be attempted in schema order. For (2) I suggest dfdl:unparseChoiceDispatchKey, evaluated at unparse time only. Produces a choice branch key. That choice branch is then constructed, and default values or dfdl:outputValueCalcs are used to fill in values. (BTW: this is the driving use case we have in Daffodil for this issue.) For (3).... I have no specific solution. I think it may not actually be a separate case and has to be treated as (1) or (2). Comments/Discussion?

2 1

Consolidated Notes including both DFDL WG Call 2018-08-07 along with other recent clarification email threads
by Mike Beckerle 03 Jul '19

03 Jul '19

This message includes two parts. Part 1 is the things we discussed on the DFDL WG Call of 2018-08-07. Part 2 is the other recent emails where the conclusion from the email thread is repeated here for finalization/refinement, and for consolidation so all these changes can be considered together. ================================ Part 1 - Discussed on the call. Re: [DFDL-WG] Clarification discussion points for next call(s) - DFDL Spec issues around nil, empty, normal, absent, defaulting, and separator suppression. Dated August 2nd Conclusions: Section 9.3.1.1 Delete phrase "...this of course implies that....". Note that there is already a correction to create numbered bullets of 3 sentences. The sentence containing this phrase will be bullet #3 of that list. Section 9.4 Item 2 under "For elements and element refs:" Change to: "dfdl:element following property scoping rules, which includes establishing representation as described in Section 9.3.2 and conversion to element type for simple types." Section 9.3.2 The phrase "The first step is to see if the content is trivaill of length zero." Change to: "The first step is to see if the SimpleContent or ComplexContnet region is of length zero as a first approximation." The bullet "delimited => length is zero (delimiter is immediately encountered)" Insert "in scope" after the open parenthesis. Section 9.4.2.3. We agreed that the paragraphs beginning with "For both required and optional..." need to be better tied to the material above. Wording TBD - pending Steve Hanson doing some tests on IBM DFDL. ============================ Part 2 - Below are conclusions from the prior email threads. This is for email review in lieu of discussion on this week's call. Re: [DFDL-WG] clarification: on suppressed ZL string/hexBinary - do we keep variable assignments?Of Aug 6 (last date in the thread) These corrections apply: Sections 9.4.2.2 and 9.4.2.3 The phrase "Optional occurrence: If dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is not 'none'[12] <http://daffodil.apache.org/docs/dfdl/#_ftn12>," Change to "Optional occurrence: if dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is applicable and is not 'none',...." (retaining the footnote) Section 9.4.2 Before the final phrase "There are three main cases to consider:" Insert this sentence: "The sections below indicate when an item is added to the infoset, and whether it has a default or other value. If there is no processing error then regardless of whether an item is added to the infoset or not, any side-effects due to dfdl:discriminator statements evaluating to true, or dfdl:setVariable statements, are retained." Section 12.2 For property emptyValueDelimiterPolicy, before the phrase "It is a schema definition error if...", insert this sentence: "The value of dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy should only be checked if there is a dfdl:initiator or dfdl:terminator in scope. If so, and dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is not set, it is a schema definition error. If dfdl:initiator is not "" and dfdl:terminator is "" and dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is 'terminator' it is a schema definition error. If dfdl:terminator is not "" and dfdl:initiator is " and dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is 'initiator' it is a schema definition error." Section 13.16 For property nilValueDelimiterPolicy, before the phrase "It is a schema definition error if...", insert this sentence: "The value of dfdl:nilValueDelimiterPolicy should only be checked if there is a dfdl:initiator or dfdl:terminator in scope. If so, and dfdl:nilValueDelimiterPolicy is not set, it is a schema definition error. If dfdl:initiator is not "" and dfdl:terminator is "" and dfdl:nilValueDelimiterPolicy is 'terminator' it is a schema definition error. If dfdl:terminator is not "" and dfdl:initiator is " and dfdl:nilValueDelimiterPolicy is 'initiator' it is a schema definition error ." Section 9.2.2 The phrase "the occurrence's content in the data..." replace with "the occurrence's SimpleContent or ComplexContent region in the data..." The sentence: "The *empty representation* is special in DFDL, because when parsing it is this condition that can trigger the creation of a default value for an element occurrence." replace with: "The empty representation is special in DFDL because when parsing it it is used to determine when default values are created in the Infoset, and when optional recurring elements are omitted from the Infoset. The empty representation can require initiators or terminators be present so as to enable data formats to explicitly distinguish empty-string/hexBinary values (which might cause default values to be used) from emptiness meaning the absence of any representation." (This is to clarify an error of omission - prior language suggested that EVDP is only relevant when the element has a default value, because only that need was mentioned.) Re: [DFDL-WG] Clarification needed: separator for empty sequence Of Aug 2 Section 14.2 For property dfdl:separator. The sentence: "Separators occur in the data either before, between or after all occurrences of the elements or groups that are the children of the sequence." replaced with "Separators occur in the data either before, between or after all occurrences of *represented* elements (that is, elements without the dfdl:inputValueCalc property) or model groups that are the children of the sequence. Elements with dfdl:inputValueCalc have no representation in the data stream, and so never have separators. Children of a sequence that are model groups are always separated, even if they are empty (meaning have no children of their own - which is allowed for sequence groups), or both the model group child and its contained children occupy zero-length in the data stream." (note: Some of the above is redundant with stipulations in the dfdl:inputValueCalc property description, but I believe it is wise to have this little redundancy.) ====================== These email threads are mentioned here to indicate that they are resolved by one or another of the above corrections: Re: [DFDL-WG] clarification needed - ambiguity about empty string and optional element Of Aug 2 Re: [DFDL-WG] Spec correction ? - Section 9.3.2.1 - second list missing "empty" representationOf Aug 2 ----------- 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 7

Re: [DFDL-WG] Action Item: Versioning mechanism for DFDL v2.0 features/changes
by Mike Beckerle 28 Apr '19

28 Apr '19

So if a schema doesn't use dfdl:format at all, then it doesn't hurt to add <dfdl:format DFDLVersion="2"/> to it at top level in order to express version when DFDL v2.0 features are added to it. I think the alternative would be a separate annotation element <dfdl:version value="2"/> that is explicitly for this purpose, is allowed only at top level, etc. That would eliminate the complexity of getting a DFDLVersion by way of a dfdl:ref that includes a named format. It could be required to just be at lexical top level of every schema document that uses v2.0 features. The reason not to change namespaces, even though that is what we thought we should do originally, is based on various guidance such as http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/07/21/design.html These comments mostly apply to versioning of individual DFDL schemas, not of the schema-defining language itself. The quintessential example of a language version changing is XMLSchema itself which now has version 1.1. This still uses the same namespace as XMLSchema 1.0. 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 Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: > Mike, > > Your scheme as proposed has a couple of problems. > a) It is possible to create a schema that does not use dfdl:format at all. > Unlikely but possible. With such a schema there is no way to indicate > version. > b) What are the version implications for annotations that have nothing to > do with dfdl:format? Asserts, discriminators, variables. > > Most of the language you use refers to versions of *schemas*. That's not > the same as version of a dfdl:format. Any reason you didn't just change the > DFDL namespace URL to be *http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-2.0/* > <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-2.0/>, which must be declared before any > DFDL feature can be used? I think that was always the intent of the DFDL > namespace. > > The key piece of work is validating any proposal against the scoping rules > in section 8 of the spec. > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > > IBM Hybrid Integration, Hursley, UK > Architect, *IBM DFDL* > <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/se-dfdl/index.html> > Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > *smh(a)uk.ibm.com* <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 <+44%201962%20815848> > mob:+44-7717-378890 <+44%207717%20378890> > Note: I work Tuesday to Friday > > > > From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> > To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org > Date: 23/01/2018 16:03 > Subject: [DFDL-WG] Action Item: Versioning mechanism for DFDL v2.0 > features/changes > Sent by: "dfdl-wg" <dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org> > ------------------------------ > > > > > There are some features now under discussion which will most likely not be > part of the DFDL v1.0 standard, but a subsequent version 2.0 of the > standard. > > Implementations may have these features prior to the existence of that > draft version of the DFDL standard; hence, a mechanism for indicating the > support, and requirements that implies, on DFDL schemas is needed in order > for these v2.0 features to be introduced. > > The purpose of the versioning mechanism is to provide access to DFDL v2.0 > features, while maintaining also backward compatibility with DFDL v1.0 > schemas. > > For example, new DFDL format properties may be added to the DFDL v2.0 > version; however, those properties are not required to be specified unless > the version of the schema is specifically set to indicate it is using > version 2.0 features. Also, deprecated features should only generate > deprecation warnings if the user is requesting version 2.0 of DFDL, and > should be silent otherwise. > > Proposal: > > New attribute on the dfdl:format annotation: DFDLVersion with valid values > "1", "2". All values are reserved for future use. > > The DFDLVersion, if unspecified, defaults to "1" which means the > implementation is of the DFDL v1.0 specification. > > If the DFDLVersion is "2", then new requirements for version 2.0 of DFDL > may be enforced on the schema, and schema definition errors will result if > version 2.0 requirements are not met. DFDL Version 1.0 features that are > deprecated will generate warnings. > > Example: > > <dfdl:format DFDLVersion="2" .../> > > Example: > > <dfdl:defineFormat name="myV2Format"> > <dfdl:format DFDLVersion="2" .../> > </dfdl:defineFormat> > > The DFDLVersion is not a format property and is not scoped. It can be > added to a named format definition which is then referenced in the usual > manner for named format definitions. > > Backward Compatibility Requirement > > DFDL Implementations that provide version 2.0 functionality must also > provide DFDL v1.0 compatibility. That is, version 2.0 subsumes and extends > version 1.0. > > Mixed Version Schemas > > If a schema consists of multiple schema documents, and their respective > dfdl:format annotations do not all contain the same value for the > DFDLVersion attribute, then the schema is said to be "mixed version". This > is allowed. > > A named dfdl:format carrying DFDLVersion "2" may not be referenced from a > DFDL Schema document having DFDLVersion "1". > > The opposite is allowed: A named dfdl:format carrying DFDLVersion="1" or > lacking the DFDLVersion attribute may be referenced from a DFDL Schema > having DFDLVersion="2". > > There are really 3 ways that DFDL version 2.0 can differ from version 1.0, > and these are that new features are added, old features are deprecated, or > old features are removed. This latter is quite undesirable, but will be > considered a possibility for purpose of discussion this versioning system. > > These will commonly be in combination such as if an old feature is > deprecated with the replacement feature being added. > > These will now be discussed separately, with the emphasis on how mixed > version schemas must work. > > New Features Added > > Each new required DFDL property introduced for version 2.0 will be defined > along with what is called its "version 1.0 default value". When a mixed > version schema exists, the DFDL v1.0 parts of it behave as if any required > DFDLVersion 2 properties have their version 1.0 default value defined, at > top level of the schema (as if defined with that default value in each > DFDLVersion 1 schema document's dfdl:format annotation). > > Features Removed > > Incompatibilities are to be avoided wherever possible, and may not be > needed at all. However, there is still the possibility that some feature > will want to be entirely removed and replaced by something better, and in > that case the versioning scheme needs to be able to support this. > > In that situation, the schema definition error for version 2 is only > generated when a schema has DFDLVersion 2 specified (in dfdl:format > explicitly, or by reference to a named format carrying or referencing > DFDLVersion 2). Mixed schemas that contain schema documents entirely using > version 1 of DFDL do not generate this schema definition error. > > Features deprecated > > Deprecation warnings are generated only when a DFDLVersion="2" attribute > is present or is incorporated by reference (to a named format). A version 1 > schema that is incorporated with a version 2 DFDL schema but is not > modified in any way, does not generate deprecation warnings about version > 1.0 features that have been deprecated in version 2.0. > > (Most likely deprecations would be revising property names or value enums > for clarity.) > > Implementations may provide mechanisms for suppressing warnings. These are > implementation dependent. > > Version 1.0 Existing Deprecations and Compatibility > > During the process of standardization for DFDL v1.0 a number of properties > names were changed. DFDL version 1.0 implementations accept both the old > and new property names. > (Example: dfdl:separatorSuppressionPolicy, which replaced an older > property name.) DFDL schemas that specify DFDLVersion="2" will not accept > the older property names, and it is a schema definition error if the old > (pre DFDL v1.0) property names are used. > > Properly constructed mixed version schemas can still depend on the older > property names in the version 1.0 parts of the schema. > > ------------------------------ > > > Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | > *www.tresys.com* > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tresys.com&d=DwMFaQ…> > Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are > subject to the *OGF Intellectual Property Policy* > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ogf.org_About_abt-5…> > -- > dfdl-wg mailing list > dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. > ogf.org_mailman_listinfo_dfdl-2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=jf_ > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=AJa9ThEymJXYnOqu84mJuw&m=lDIa8xvu2n-e8 > PXWCJmajfYaXESMqvvOWpg1HMWeuGQ&s=hdO_VQ_p-1f7JfZPcSTPR1S_Y1a > nSBXJWarqPdJZdPc&e= > > 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 > >

2 6

Action 307 - Demonstrate implementation interoperability
by Steve Hanson 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

Action 307 was raised recently and first task is for implementations to identify which core spec behaviour is not implemented. IBM DFDL The following is the list of DFDL 1.0 spec core features that IBM DFDL does not yet implement. - dfdl:encodingErrorPolicy "replace" - dfdl:binaryBooleanTrueRep with value empty string - dfdl:assert on global element and simple type - dfdl:discriminator on global element and simple type - Multiple xs:appinfo elements within each xs:annotation element - When parsing, the distinction between an element being 'missing', having an 'empty representation' and having an 'absent representation', is not in accordance with the specification. - When encoding is 'UTF-8' or 'UTF-16', byte order marks are not processed The above lists are derived from information at https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSMKHH_10.0.0/com.ibm.etools… and are those that apply to core spec features. Regards Steve Hanson IBM Hybrid Integration, Hursley, UK Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 Note: I work Tuesday to Friday 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

2 6

Re: [DFDL-WG] Part 2 - Re: Action 307 - Demonstrate implementation interoperability - BOM
by Steve Hanson 27 Mar '19

27 Mar '19

Hi Mike The outstanding item to resolve is what to about BOMs. 307 Demonstrate implementation interoperability (Steve, Mike) 4/9: Need to make sure that DFDL spec section 21 lists a correct set of optional features, the implication being that Daffodil and IBM DFDL (and any other minimally conforming implementation) correctly implement the remaining required features. First step - see if there are any obvious omissions. 16/10: Steve sent email stating IBM DFDL's missing core features and non-compliant behaviour, and Mike responded. Discussion continuing via two separate email threads. Part 1 for core features. Part 2 for optional features. For the core features, agreed that the following needs to happen: 1) IBM adds encodingErrorPolicy='replace' 2) Daffodil adds encodingErrorPolicy='error' 3) Daffodil ensures that, if not implementing default/fixed when parsing, it gives an SDE if a required occurrence has empty rep and element has default/fixed set. 4) A position is agreed on BOM handling - ongoing via email. 1/11: Just BOM to conclude on from the above list 15/11: Not discussed 29/11: No further progress. 10/1/19: 1) IBM have started the work to add encodingErrorPolicy='replace'. 2) Daffodil have a temp setting to tolerate encodingErrorPolicy='error' with a warning. 3) Daffodil to investigate whether this is feasible. 4) More discussion needed on BOM 7/2: Updates: 1) In progress 2) As above. 3) In progress 4) No progress I can't find the email thread the action mentions, but my thoughts are as follows: There are 3 options - a) keep the spec as it is which implies BOM processing is core - a problem as neither Daffodil nor IBM DFDL implement it b) make BOM processing optional - which means there would need to be a property to switch it on or off in case an implementation started to support it later c) remove BOM processing altogether from 1.0 and add to the 2.0 list I am leaning towards c) on the following grounds: - Only one customer that I know of ever requested BOM processing for non-XML data (in 2010, for MRM, before IBM DFDL available) - BOM processing only applies to the message as a whole, not to any embedded Unicode fragments, so support is selective anyway - It is possible to model an optional BOM and use it to set a user-defined encoding variable which is then used by the rest of the schema I have a schema that models BOM and it successfully parses and unparses the 3 variants fine (no BOM present, BOM for BE present, BOM for LE present). If you have the BOM email thread please can you forward it, so I can see if I have missed any part of the thought process? I have found the original DFDL WG thread from 2011 when we added BOM support to the spec via erratum 3.7, which discusses the original motivation and design, I'll send you it. Regards Steve Hanson IBM Hybrid Integration, Hursley, UK Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 Note: I work Tuesday to Friday From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> Cc: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 09/10/2018 12:16 Subject: Re: Part 2 - Re: Action 307 - Demonstrate implementation interoperability Mike, responses in-line below. Regards Steve Hanson IBM Hybrid Integration, Hursley, UK Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 Note: I work Tuesday to Friday From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> Cc: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 04/10/2018 00:50 Subject: Part 2 - Re: Action 307 - Demonstrate implementation interoperability Based on Daffodil JIRA ticket backlog, and documentation at https://daffodil.apache.org/unsupported/, below are DFDL non-core features that are not supported by Daffodil, but that seem to be supported by IBM DFDL (based on my not finding anything that says they aren't implemented), and so are possibly in use in DFDL schemas we will need to use for interoperability testing. Please advise if IBM DFDL does *not* implement any of these. * default, fixed - for defaulting values at parse time - Daffodil support for this is partial at parse time, unsupported at unparse time. The fixed attribute isn't supported at all. * unordered sequences. IBM DFDL does not support default/fixed when parsing (see other thread). * byte-value entities - in contexts other than fillByte * ICU symbols 'u' and 'I' in calendarPattern * binaryFloatRep 'ibm390Hex' * documentFinalTerminatorCanBeMissing * textStandardBase - with value not equal to 10 * lengthKind 'prefixed', and prefixIncludesPrefixLength, prefixLengthType - Note IBM restricts prefixLengthType to a type that itself cannot be prefixed. Correct. * assert with failure type 'recoverableError' * calendarObserveDST * calendarCenturyStart * textNumberPattern 'V' and 'P' symbols * CCSID for specifying dfdl:encoding * nilKind 'literalValue' for binary data * choiceLengthKind 'explicit' and choiceLength * separatorSuppressionPolicy - behaviors for these in Daffodil are known to be both non-standard currently and also different from IBM DFDL. This needs correcting. IBM DFDL does not support 'trailingEmptyStrict' . The above list (after review/correction) needs to be crossed with the published DFDL schemas on github that were published by IBM. The features required to run those DFDL schemas are required for Daffodil to implement before the interoperability demonstration. Below are features of DFDL I believe neither IBM DFDL nor Daffodil implement, and as they are non-core, they need not be implemented by either for interoperability testing: * lengthKind 'endOfParent' * nilKind 'logicalValue' IBM DFDL implements this. * occursCountKind 'stopValue' (and occursStopValue) * textBiDi - and other related biDi properties * useNilForDefault IBM DFDL implements this * floating * fn:exactlyOne function * fn:namespace-URI() function * dfdl:escapeCharacterPolicy 'delimiters' - daffodil doesn't implement this property at all. Below are features of Daffodil that are not implemented by IBM DFDL and so cannot be used in schemas created using Daffodil that intend to be interoperable. These are either easy to work around, or impossible to work around, so are not a big deal, they just have to be kept in mind if considering a DFDL schema for use in interoperability testing. This includes schemas published on github, for image formats, CSV, etc., and a number of the FOUO schema published on DI2E.net/forge.mil - some of those quite possibly can work with IBM DFDL, and if they can do so, they should be modified so that they can be included in the interoperability testing. The list below mostly comes from https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSMKHH_10.0.0/com.ibm.etools… * calendarTimeZone specified as "" (empty string) - This is the most problematic one, so I've put it first. The predefined DFDL named format that is supplied with Daffodil and used as a starting point by most schemas has calendarTimeZone="". This is because customers didn't like that their datetimes were all being appended with "+00:00" for UTC time zone (in the infoset) when the data simply didn't specify a time zone. Schemas intended for interoperability testing should specify 'UTC' for this property. * calendarTimeZone specified as an Olson format time zone * inputValueCalc, outputValueCalc * hiddenGroupRef * Asserts and discriminators on simple type definitions or global element definitions * fn:concat with more than 4 arguments * non-8-bit charset encodings * bitOrder not mostSignifcantBitFirst * '@' in textNumberPattern (TBD: unsure if Daffodil has this) * "_" in calendarLanguage * calendarLanguage an expression * assert & discriminator messages an expression * binaryBooleanTrueRep as "" (empty string) * checks for binary packed numbers with length units 'bits' and not a multiple of 4 length, and similarly for alignmentUnits bits and alignment not multiple of 4. (relevant to negative tests only) * lengthKind 'implicit' complex elements inside lengthKind 'delimited' complex elements. Additionally IBM DFDL contains these bugs in its expression processing: 1) Path locations are not correctly validated. Specifically, array elements without predicates and references into other choice branches are not flagged as errors. 2) In DFDL expression functions, the namespace prefixes for http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema and http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions" must be 'xs' and 'fn' respectively, even if not declared. 3) In DFDL expressions, namespace prefixes in paths are ignored and matching is against element name only. For interoperability testing therefore: - For 1) avoid the use of either example - For 2) always declare xmlns:xs and xmlns:fn and always use those prefixes in expressions - For 3) avoid sibling elements that have same name but different namespace; use elementFormDefault="unqualified" to avoid namespaces for local elements altogether 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 on 2018-03-21 - cancelled
by Steve Hanson 21 Mar '19

21 Mar '19

Apologies but Steve has a deadline for this Friday. Should be ok for next call in 2 weeks time. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

Cancelled: OGF DFDL Working Group call
by Steve Hanson 21 Mar '19

21 Mar '19

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call on 2018-03-07 - cancelled
by Steve Hanson 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

Apologies but Steve has a deadline looming - should be ok for next call on March 14th. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

Cancelled: OGF DFDL Working Group call
by Steve Hanson 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

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