[DFDL-WG] needed: signed bit fields

current DFDL v1.0 spec says bit fields are all unsigned integers up to length 64. I am modeling data that uses lots of twos-complement 24-bit long and other length signed integers on various bit-boundaries. Was there a reason to leave signed twos-complement out for bit fields (other than perhaps just we thought we might get away with it?) The only corner case I can think of is if you make a 1-bit wide signed bit field. This should be a Schema Defintion Error I believe, because twos-complement isn't defined unless you have at one sign bit, and at least 1 mantissa bit. ...mikeb -- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair | Tresys Technologies Tel: 781-330-0412