On second thought, instead of a Schema Definition
Warning, could this be a recoverable error instead?   That is, would
the following convey the originally intended meaning better?

Note: Unrecognized DFDL properties or property values can produce a

recoverable error, and an implementation can attempt to process data

despite the error.

IIRC, this section on specific errors was added *before* recoverable errors
were added to the spec.

Thoughts?

-Jonathan

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Cranford, Jonathan W.

>Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:30 AM

>To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org

>Subject: possible editorial issue - Schema Definition Warning

>

>The phrase "Schema Definition Warning" only occurs once in
the published 1.0.4

>spec (without respect to capitalization), in Section 2.6 Specific Errors
Classified:

>

>                
"Note: Unrecognized DFDL properties or property values can produce
a

>Schema Definition Warning and an implementation can attempt to process
data

>despite the warning."

>

>Is the concept of a Schema Definition Warning a nascent concept already
present

>in the spec but not well-defined?  If so, this might be a minor
issue that warrants

>an errata.  My recommendation would be that Schema Definition
Warning be

>defined and used consistently throughout the document.

>

>Otherwise, I recommend that "Schema Definition Warning" be
replaced in the

>above sentence with simply "warning".  In this case,
this is probably just an

>editorial issue.

>

>Very respectfully,

>

>--

>Jonathan W. Cranford

>Senior Information Systems Engineer

>The MITRE Corporation (
http://www.mitre.org
)

--

  dfdl-wg mailing list

  dfdl-wg@ogf.org

https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg