I added some MSWord comments to your document. All mine are minor points. Good job. This is much more dense but still very clear. Mike Beckerle STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing IBM Software Group Information Integration Solutions Westborough, MA 01581 voice and FAX 508-599-7148 home/mobile office 508-915-4795 "Tom Sugden" <tom@epcc.ed.ac.uk> Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org 11/14/2006 12:28 PM To dfdl-wg@ogf.org cc Subject [DFDL-WG] Scoping Rules Rewrite Hi all, Please find attached my attempt at a rewrite of the scoping rules from the draft specification. This work was undertaken in response to concerns about the size of the spec. My aim was to condense the material at the same time as improving clarity. I have certainly reduced the size, so the main question is whether the essentials are still there. My approach was to first try and summarise the rules concisely, making use of tables for easy reference, and then to illustrate them with cut-down examples. I have also created a new set of styles to improve readability, and used a flatter structure for the section. One sub-section from the draft spec was completely cut (and perhaps should not have been): Resolution Rules for Formal Properties. It did not seem to to sit comfortably with the rest of the section since it discusses in detail the logic of a DFDL processor over an entire traversal of a DFDL document. My own feeling is that it would be better in a section of the spec covering the logic of the processor, rather than the rules of the language, or perhaps in a different document. I would be grateful to receive any feedback on this work, and hear opinions about whether a similar approach might benefit other parts of the spec. On the other hand, I will take no offense if you feel the style is inappropriate or the content lacking! It has been a useful personal exercise to learn more about DFDL and spec writing is new to me. All the best, Tom -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg