I claim these items are really open-ended research things. Not ready to be considered for specification.

I propose relabeling them by removing the DFDL v2.0 label, and adding a "Research Topic" label.

https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/issues/70 (non-XSD syntax – escape from XML)
https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/issues/63 (pathological DFDL parser behavior)
https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/issues/13 (variable or wildcard path step)

The primary feature of ESA’s DFDL4Space implementation

https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/issues/40 (ICU DecimalFormat class updates)
https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/issues/27 (embedded XML and JSON in data)

Daffodil attempted this feature, but it’s definitely wrong. Must be part of parsing to verify the XML/JSON are well-formed. We did have a real use case for this.).

https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/issues/23 (improvements where DFDL v1.0 spec is weak, need better examples, improved discussion text)
https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/issues/20 (bidirectional text)

Requires a R-to-L languages expert to specify this.

This allows the remaining DFDL v2.0 labeled things to be more relevant, as they are shorter term things that are cleanups or are features people actually need. (About half of them are already implemented in Daffodil).

In fact the remaining things labeled DFDL v2.0 are possibly just a DFDL v1.1 spec., as they're not as far out as any of the above listed issues, and might be considered a point release, not a major release. Or at least we can have that discussion. But the above list are clearly non-point release items.

Thoughts?

Mike Beckerle

OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | www.ogf.org/ogf/doku.php/standards/dfdl/dfdl

Apache Daffodil PMC | daffodil.apache.org

Owl Cyber Defense | www.owlcyberdefense.com

Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy