- dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

OGF DFDL Working Group call
by Steve Hanson 29 May '19

29 May '19

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call on 2018-05-16 - cancelled
by Steve Hanson 15 May '19

15 May '19

Apologies but I have 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 15 May '19

15 May '19

1 0

Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 306 - IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings
by Steve Hanson 09 May '19

09 May '19

It will hopefully be possible for you to apply the new 'treatAsMissing' enum to just 2 places in the Daffodil code: 1) Empty rep found for required occurrence -> processing error 2) Empty rep found for optional occurrence -> don't add anything to infoset Maybe 4 places if you have separate paths for simple v complex. That's an indicator of how conceptually simple this property is, once you know the difference between empty & missing. I am pretty sure the IBM DFDL behaviour deviation around empty/missing can be encapsulated by just this. 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: 09/05/2019 08:12 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 306 - IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings I prefer dfdl:emptyElementParsePolicy = ( "treatAsMissing" | "treatAsEmpty" ) You have to understand the difference between empty and missing in DFDL. It has an effect on all types - for example, if you set "treatAsMissing" for a required number, it means empty always causes a processing error instead of potentially applying a default. 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: 08/05/2019 19:26 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 306 - IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings I suggest we stick with the "...Policy" naming convention for new things that control modes of behavior. I'd prefer to avoid the terms empty and missing in the property values and go with something that is more explanatory of what difference it makes. E.g, emptyElementParsePolicy with values "excludeEmptyStringAndHexBinaryValues" and "allowEmptyStringAndHexBinaryValues" The doc for these values will of course have to be in terms of Absent/Missing/Empty, etc. but at least the names give some intuition as to what they control without having to understand all of DFDL's nuances about the difference between what Absent and Missing is. 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, May 8, 2019 at 12:52 PM Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Maybe this is better; dfdl:parseEmptyAsMissing = yes | no 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: 08/05/2019 16:48 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 306 - IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings Interesting. Many DFDL schemas I've created have a simpleType defintion named "nzString" which is string, plus an assertion that it is non-empty. That's to achieve exactly the behavior you have in IBM DFDL, because, as you say, many formats want this. We could rename the suggested property emptyElementParsePolicy to make it clear it is only about parsing. I like treatAsMissing. Easy to say what it means. treatAsEmpty begs the question of what empty elements do, but that's already complicated in the spec due to optionals and EVDP, so I'm happy with this also. ...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 On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 3:48 AM Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Hi Mike I think what you have highlighted is that there are formats which require that empty elements should not be treated as empty but as missing, which is effectively what IBM DFDL is doing (our code was written prior to action 140 when there was no distinction between empty & missing). That could be achieved with assertions. So maybe we should view the new property as a convenience property for such formats, as well as handling IBM DFDL's behaviour? If so, then can I suggest new names for the enums, which I think makes the intent clearer? dfdl:emptyElementPolicy = ( "treatAsMissing" | "treatAsEmpty" ) This only applies when parsing, maybe names should reflect that also? Further, "treatAsMissing" would imply that a default value was never used when parsing, as they are only used when the representation is empty. I think we can do away with the SDE clause for "treatAsMissing". The clause is only needed for "treatAsEmpty". IBM DFDL does implement nillable processing, including use of ES as nil literal value. 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: 03/05/2019 21:23 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 306 - IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings Under testing with the EDIFACT schema (from DFDLSchemas on github) against new code in daffodil, I see that my proposal was not sufficient. Steve Hanson stated that IBM DFDL current behavior for required empty strings includes "An empty occurrence with no default gives a Processing Error." I misinterpreted this. I was thinking required occurrence of an array element (as in with index <= minOccurs). But this should not be interpreted that narrowly, but any required occurrence at all including scalar elements. The EDIFACT schema depends on this behavior and backtracking driven by it, in order to work. So my suggestion for new properties to control this is revised to: dfdl:emptyElementPolicy enum with values noEmptyElements - matches current IBM DFDL behavior where * required elements without default values that are empty (specifically which satisfy the empty syntax - defined below) always cause Processing Errors. ** If a default value is specified that is provided as the value instead. When a default value is specified, then implementations that don't support default values when parsing must issue a runtime SDE here, not a processing error. * optional elements which satisfy the empty syntax are not added to the infoset. Defaulting is never considered. emptyElements - matches current description in the DFDL spec where * required elements: if the string/hexBinary satisfies the empty syntax then required elements are created with an empty string or empty hexBinary as their value. If a default value is specified that is substituted as the value instead. When a default value is specified, then implementations that don't support default values when parsing must issue a SDE here, not a processing error. * optional elements: if the string/hexBinary satisfies the empty syntax, and emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is not 'none' then an empty string (or hexbinary) is added to the infoset. If emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is 'none', nothing is added to the infoset. The term "satisfy the empty syntax" means what is found in the data stream may require initiator and/or terminator depending on emptyValueDelimiterPolicy, but if that is 'none' then this is satisfied just by empty string (or no bytes for hexBinary). Having said the above, I believe we also have to consider nillable elements. There are two topics: 1) defaulting to nilled - For the case of a nillable element, where the data syntax does NOT match the nil representation, then in the above anywhere a default value is specified, and there is behavior associated with that, well if the element is nillable, and dfdl:useNilAsDefault='true' is specified, then the element is default valued to being nilled. When nillable and dfdl:useNilAsDefault='true' is specified, then implementations that don't support defaulting to nilled when parsing must issue an SDE here, not a processing error. That takes care of the defaulting aspect of nillables. The second topic is: 2) nillable, and dfdl:nilValue contains %ES; as one of the possible nil representations. Hence, there is the possibility of empty string (or empty hexBinary) matching the nil representation. I think the DFDL spec is clear here that if the data stream satisfies the nil syntax, then required or optional, you get a nilled element, period. Does IBM DFDL implement that behavior? If so great. If not I think we may have to amend the above description of noEmptyElements case for dfdl:emptyElementPolicy to specify the special cases. ...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 On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 9:36 AM Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> wrote: One clarification: is the IBM DFDL behavior the same for empty hexBinary elements as it is for text strings? I'm going to suggest we need a policy property e.g., dfdl:emptyElementPolicy which is an enum with at least these options: noOptionalEmptyElements - matches current IBM DFDL behavior optionalEmptyElementsWithSyntax - matches current description in the DFDL spec where initiator and/or terminator found triggers creation of an empty string value. (Daffodil implements this.) This would apply (I think) to both types xs:string ad xs:hexBinary I'm open to suggestions for better naming for the property and the property values, but these are the two settings we need I think. I do believe that the latter optionalEmptyElementsWithSyntax behavior is what the DFDL spec describes, and is most consistent given the available properties such as emptyValueDelimiterPolicy. We can make implementation of optionalEmptyElementsWithSyntax a DFDL optional language feature, thereby avoiding issues of conformance with the DFDL standard. 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 Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 12:43 PM Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Daffodil to perform identical tests but the belief is that they implement the spec as published (except maybe for one bug with default values for strings). So there is a mis-match between Daffodil and IBM DFDL. It sounds like a new property is going to be needed which toggles the way that empty strings are handled. 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: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Cc: "Mike Beckerle" <mbeckerle(a)tresys.com>, "Michele Zundo" < michele.zundo(a)esa.int>, Bradd Kadlecik/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS Date: 03/04/2019 12:04 Subject: Action 306 - IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings 306 Confirm IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings (Steve) 7/8: IBM DFDL has not fully implemented the behaviour changes arising from action 140 with respect to empty string elements. Daffodil is about to do so. IBM DFDL users have complained about lack of defaults when parsing but other than that appear happy. Are the rules in the spec for empty strings over complicated? Steve to document the behaviour for IBM DFDL to inform the discussion. ... 1/11: In progress - there are a lot of subtle scenarios 15/11: Not discussed ... 7/2/19: No further progress Some progress :) 9.4.2.2 Simple element (xs:string or xs:hexBinary) Required occurrence: If the element has a default value then an item is added to the infoset using the default value, otherwise an item is added to the Infoset using empty string (type xs:string) or empty hexBinary (type xs:hexBinary) as the value. Optional occurrence: If dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is not 'none' then an item is added to the Infoset using empty string (type xs:string) or empty hexBinary (type xs:hexBinary) as the value, otherwise nothing is added to the Infoset. IBM DFDL behaviour: Required. IBM DFDL does not implement default values when parsing, so an empty occurrence with a default value gives an SDE (to prevent backtracking). An empty occurrence with no default gives a Processing Error. If you need to add an empty string to the infoset, you can add default=""(when default values implemented, of course). Optional. IBM DFDL adds nothing to the infoset regardless of presence of initiator and/or terminator. No way to get empty string into the infoset. 9.4.2.3 Complex element Required occurrence: An item is added to the Infoset. Optional occurrence: If dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is not 'none' then an item is added to the Infoset, otherwise nothing is added to the Infoset. For both required and optional occurrences, the Infoset item may also have a child item. 1. If the first child element of the complex type is a required simple element, then an empty string (type xs:string), empty hexBinary (type xs:hexBinary), or default value will also be added to the Infoset. 2. If the first child element of the complex type is a required complex element, then an item is added to the Infoset (which may itself have a child via (1)) IBM DFDL behaviour: Required. IBM DFDL follows the spec (modulo 1 when an error would have been thrown, as per its 9.4.2.2 behaviour). Optional. IBM DFDL follows the spec (modulo 1 when an error would have been thrown, as per its 9.4.2.2 behaviour). So ... The spec today is consistent in one way, in that for both complex & string elements a) a required empty occurrence always adds to the infoset; & b) an optional empty occurrence adds to the infoset if initiator/terminator present; & c) an optional empty occurrence does not add to the infoset if no initiator/terminator present. If the simple string behaviour was to change to match IBM DFDL then that consistency is lost, but the string behaviour then matches that for other simple types. Section 9.4.2.2 disappears as the behaviour is same as 9.4.2.1. Section 9.4.2.3 becomes as below. We lose the ability to get an empty string into the infoset for an optional string with initiator/terminator. 9.4.2.3 Complex element Required occurrence: An item is added to the Infoset. Optional occurrence: If dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is not 'none' then an item is added to the Infoset, otherwise nothing is added to the Infoset. For both required and optional occurrences, the Infoset item may also have a child item. 1. If the first child element of the complex type is a required simple element, then a default value will also be added to the Infoset. 2. If the first child element of the complex type is a required complex element, then an item is added to the Infoset (which may itself have a child via (1)) We also need to be sure that any other implementations have not yet implemented the current spec behaviour. Need to check with DFDL4S and IBM TPF. To be discussed on next WG call ... 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 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

1 0

Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 306 - IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings
by Steve Hanson 09 May '19

09 May '19

Daffodil to perform identical tests but the belief is that they implement the spec as published (except maybe for one bug with default values for strings). So there is a mis-match between Daffodil and IBM DFDL. It sounds like a new property is going to be needed which toggles the way that empty strings are handled. 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: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Cc: "Mike Beckerle" <mbeckerle(a)tresys.com>, "Michele Zundo" <michele.zundo(a)esa.int>, Bradd Kadlecik/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS Date: 03/04/2019 12:04 Subject: Action 306 - IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings 306 Confirm IBM DFDL behaviour when parsing empty strings (Steve) 7/8: IBM DFDL has not fully implemented the behaviour changes arising from action 140 with respect to empty string elements. Daffodil is about to do so. IBM DFDL users have complained about lack of defaults when parsing but other than that appear happy. Are the rules in the spec for empty strings over complicated? Steve to document the behaviour for IBM DFDL to inform the discussion. ... 1/11: In progress - there are a lot of subtle scenarios 15/11: Not discussed ... 7/2/19: No further progress Some progress :) 9.4.2.2 Simple element (xs:string or xs:hexBinary) Required occurrence: If the element has a default value then an item is added to the infoset using the default value, otherwise an item is added to the Infoset using empty string (type xs:string) or empty hexBinary (type xs:hexBinary) as the value. Optional occurrence: If dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is not 'none' then an item is added to the Infoset using empty string (type xs:string) or empty hexBinary (type xs:hexBinary) as the value, otherwise nothing is added to the Infoset. IBM DFDL behaviour: Required. IBM DFDL does not implement default values when parsing, so an empty occurrence with a default value gives an SDE (to prevent backtracking). An empty occurrence with no default gives a Processing Error. If you need to add an empty string to the infoset, you can add default=""(when default values implemented, of course). Optional. IBM DFDL adds nothing to the infoset regardless of presence of initiator and/or terminator. No way to get empty string into the infoset. 9.4.2.3 Complex element Required occurrence: An item is added to the Infoset. Optional occurrence: If dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is not 'none' then an item is added to the Infoset, otherwise nothing is added to the Infoset. For both required and optional occurrences, the Infoset item may also have a child item. 1. If the first child element of the complex type is a required simple element, then an empty string (type xs:string), empty hexBinary (type xs:hexBinary), or default value will also be added to the Infoset. 2. If the first child element of the complex type is a required complex element, then an item is added to the Infoset (which may itself have a child via (1)) IBM DFDL behaviour: Required. IBM DFDL follows the spec (modulo 1 when an error would have been thrown, as per its 9.4.2.2 behaviour). Optional. IBM DFDL follows the spec (modulo 1 when an error would have been thrown, as per its 9.4.2.2 behaviour). So ... The spec today is consistent in one way, in that for both complex & string elements a) a required empty occurrence always adds to the infoset; & b) an optional empty occurrence adds to the infoset if initiator/terminator present; & c) an optional empty occurrence does not add to the infoset if no initiator/terminator present. If the simple string behaviour was to change to match IBM DFDL then that consistency is lost, but the string behaviour then matches that for other simple types. Section 9.4.2.2 disappears as the behaviour is same as 9.4.2.1. Section 9.4.2.3 becomes as below. We lose the ability to get an empty string into the infoset for an optional string with initiator/terminator. 9.4.2.3 Complex element Required occurrence: An item is added to the Infoset. Optional occurrence: If dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is not 'none' then an item is added to the Infoset, otherwise nothing is added to the Infoset. For both required and optional occurrences, the Infoset item may also have a child item. 1. If the first child element of the complex type is a required simple element, then a default value will also be added to the Infoset. 2. If the first child element of the complex type is a required complex element, then an item is added to the Infoset (which may itself have a child via (1)) We also need to be sure that any other implementations have not yet implemented the current spec behaviour. Need to check with DFDL4S and IBM TPF. To be discussed on next WG call ... 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 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 7

Latest OGF DFDL WG Call Minutes
by Steve Hanson 02 May '19

02 May '19

Please find minutes from the latest call at https://redmine.ogf.org/projects/dfdl-wg/news Regards Steve Hanson IBM Hybrid Integration Architect, IBM DFDL, Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890

1 0

Confirmed: OGF DFDL Working Group call (2 May 16:00 GDT)
by Steve Hanson 02 May '19

02 May '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

Agenda for OGF DFDL WG Call
by Steve Hanson 02 May '19

02 May '19

Please find agenda for call on Redmine at https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13587?download= Regards Steve Hanson IBM Hybrid Integration Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890

1 0

Minor clarification needed: kind of error if dfdl:choiceDispatchKey evaluates to an empty string
by Mike Beckerle 30 Apr '19

30 Apr '19

The spec for property dfdl:choiceDispatchKey says "The expression must evaluate to an xs:string which must not be the empty string." It fails to say whether this "must not" is a processing error or schema-definition error. Consistent with delimiter expressions evaluating to empty string, I believe this should be an SDE. ...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

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