- dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

action 228 - tutorials - small progress
by Mike Beckerle 16 Feb '16

16 Feb '16

Progress on this action. Here's a start at a tutorial on bit-order. Eventually the URL will change to a more reasonable and stable one: https://opensource.ncsa.illinois.edu/bamboo/artifact/DFDL-MASTER21/JOB1/bui… <https://exchange10.columbia.tresys.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=518bb2929d6b4d75a8f…> This is the TDML source file corresponding to it where you can see the <tdml:tutorial> elements have been inserted with extensive xhtml5 markup. https://opensource.ncsa.illinois.edu/bitbucket/projects/DFDL/repos/daffodil… This renders well in Chrome and in Firefox. Have not tried other browsers. We have a background project here (meaning people are squeezing it between other things) at Tresys to add interaction capabilities to these, where one would have buttons that take you to an interaction dialog where you can edit the schema and/or expected/input data and run. The links above do not have any connections to this feature yet. So the advantage of TDML in the above is only that the files are sure to create verifiable working examples that do not become stale and non-working. 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

OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2016-02-16
by Steve Hanson 16 Feb '16

16 Feb '16

Please find agenda for call on Redmine at https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13517?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

clarification: textStandardDecimalSeparator
by Mike Beckerle 11 Feb '16

11 Feb '16

Is textStandardDecimalSeparator really supposed to be a List of string literals, or just a single string literal. ICU only supports a single one. Not sure if this is a mistake. Right now Daffodil just does Schema Definition Error if there is more than one string literal. 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 1

minor spec fix - bitOrder description
by Mike Beckerle 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

Description of the bitOrder property says: "The bit order can only change on byte boundaries, and alignment of up to 7 bits will be inserted to ensure byte-alignment whenever the bit order changes." Should say "The bit order can only change on byte boundaries, and alignment of up to 7 bits will be skipped (parsing) or inserted (unparsing) to ensure byte-alignment whenever the bit order changes. 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

OGF DFDL WG Call 2016-02-02 - cancelled
by Steve Hanson 02 Feb '16

02 Feb '16

Steve not available short notice so cancelling. Next meeting is February 16th. 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 02 Feb '16

02 Feb '16

Sorry - unable to make the call again

1 0

Re: [DFDL-WG] clarification needed - unparser - do we use mandatory text alignment for zero-length strings?
by Mike Beckerle 22 Jan '16

22 Jan '16

Thanks. I think the simplest way to say this is that the element is aligned because it is representation text and the charset has a mandatory alignment, the element content is of length 0. The alignment of the element and the content length are orthogonal. 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 Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Mike > > If we are unparsing an occurrence then yes we apply alignment properties > before we output the content, even if the content is zero length. I > emphasise "if we are unparsing an occurrence" because if an element is > optional and there is no occurrence in the infoset we will not unparse > anything, so the alignment is not relevant and not used. > > 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 Integration Bus* > <http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ibm-integration-bus>, > Hursley, UK > *smh(a)uk.ibm.com* <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 > mob:+44-7717-378890 > > > > From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> > To: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> > Date: 21/01/2016 22:37 > Subject: [DFDL-WG] clarification needed - unparser - do we use > mandatory text alignment for zero-length strings? > Sent by: "dfdl-wg" <dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org> > ------------------------------ > > > > > Suppose field 1 is 3 bits long. > > Suppose field 2 is a string in utf-8. dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy='none' > > If field2 has any contents, then those characters must begin on a byte > boundary, so before the first character we will skip 5 bits. > > What if field2 is of length 0 ? Do we skip 5 bits anyway or not? > > Note that if dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is "both", and an initator or > terminator is defined, then even if length is 0 we definitely will unparse > a character at least so the 5 bits of alignment are needed in that case. > > But if there is no framing, and no content, do we align to the text > mandatory alignment or not? > > Now, I believe the answer to this should be "yes" we skip the 5 bits > anyway. Because if field 2 is lengthKind='pattern', then when parsing, we > have to scan for a match to the pattern, and so we have to know where to > start the scan, which has to be at a byte boundary. So even if there is no > match, so the length at parse time is zero, we still had to skip 5 bits > before we could start scanning. > > So to be consistent with this, I believe unparsing must also output the 5 > bits regardless of whether the string is length 0 or not. > > So there's what should it do, but also if all the constructs for this work > in IBM DFDL, I'm curious what it actually does. > > Thanks > > Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | > *www.tresys.com* <http://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> > -- > 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 needed - unparser - do we use mandatory text alignment for zero-length strings?
by Mike Beckerle 22 Jan '16

22 Jan '16

Suppose field 1 is 3 bits long. Suppose field 2 is a string in utf-8. dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy='none' If field2 has any contents, then those characters must begin on a byte boundary, so before the first character we will skip 5 bits. What if field2 is of length 0 ? Do we skip 5 bits anyway or not? Note that if dfdl:emptyValueDelimiterPolicy is "both", and an initator or terminator is defined, then even if length is 0 we definitely will unparse a character at least so the 5 bits of alignment are needed in that case. But if there is no framing, and no content, do we align to the text mandatory alignment or not? Now, I believe the answer to this should be "yes" we skip the 5 bits anyway. Because if field 2 is lengthKind='pattern', then when parsing, we have to scan for a match to the pattern, and so we have to know where to start the scan, which has to be at a byte boundary. So even if there is no match, so the length at parse time is zero, we still had to skip 5 bits before we could start scanning. So to be consistent with this, I believe unparsing must also output the 5 bits regardless of whether the string is length 0 or not. So there's what should it do, but also if all the constructs for this work in IBM DFDL, I'm curious what it actually does. Thanks 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 1

OGF DFDL WG Call 2016-01-19 - cancelled
by Steve Hanson 19 Jan '16

19 Jan '16

Steve not available so cancelling. Next meeting is February 2nd. 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 19 Jan '16

19 Jan '16

Steve unable to make the meeting

1 0