Agreed on WG call that there was no contradiction
- the first is a rule about specifying alignment, the second is about skipping
to an alignment.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF
DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
From:
Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
To:
"dfdl-wg@ogf.org"
<dfdl-wg@ogf.org>,
Date:
09/09/2013 15:59
Subject:
[DFDL-WG] ambiguity
- mandatory alignment for text (12.1.2)
Sent by:
dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org
These two paragraphs contradict each other.
When processing textual data, it is a schema
definition error if the dfdl:alignment and dfdl:alignmentUnits properties
are used to specify alignment that is not a multiple of the encoding-specified
mandatory alignment.
If the data is not aligned to the proper
boundary for the encoding when textual data is processed, then bits are
skipped (parsing) or filled from dfdl:fillByte (unparsing) to achieve the
mandatory alignment.
So is it to be SDE (conservative), or just
move over to the mandatory alignment? E.g.,
<xs:sequence dfdl:encoding="utf-8"
dfdl:alignment="7" dfdl:alignmentUnits="bits" dfdl:initiator="hello">....
The alignment property says 7 bits, but the
initiator is utf-8 which requires 8 bits. So we either SDE, or we just
add additional alignment bits to align the initiator text.
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@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