Hi Mike
Correct, there is no longer such a restriction,
although IBM DFDL is in the same position as Daffodil.
From the original errata document
(experience doc 1):
3.9. Section 12.3.5, 7.3.1,
7.3.2. The spec originally allows lengthKind ‘pattern’ to be used
when the representation of the current element, or of a child element,
is binary, but imposes restrictions on the encoding that can be in force.
Clarify that the encoding property must
be defined for the element (else schema definition error), and that a decoding
processing error is possible if the match of the regex encounters data
that does not decode in that encoding, dependent on the setting of encodingErrorPolicy.
Remove section 12.3.5.1.
Same clarifications needed for testKind
”pattern” property for asserts and discriminators.
For consistency, the restriction that
a complex element of specified length and lengthUnits ‘characters’ must
have children that are all text and that have the same encoding as the
complex element, is dropped.
Regards
Steve Hanson
IBM Hybrid Integration, Hursley, UK
Architect, IBM
DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF
DFDL Working Group
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
mob:+44-7717-378890
From:
Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
To:
"dfdl-wg@ogf.org"
<dfdl-wg@ogf.org>
Date:
31/10/2016 15:59
Subject:
[DFDL-WG] clarification
- lengthKind pattern IS allowed for hexBinary?
Sent by:
"dfdl-wg"
<dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org>
We have a restriction in Daffodil that doesn't allow lengthKind
pattern for hexBinary, but I recently reviewed the spec and can find no
such restriction.
Did I miss the restriction somewhere else? I find no occurrences
of 'pattern' nor 'hexbinary' in the current errata document.
I would say it is inconsistent to disallow lengthKind
pattern for hexBinary, after all, we allow lengthKind 'delimited' which
scans the binary bits/bytes, and that means dfdl:encoding is needed for
hexBinary when lengthKind is 'delimited', so we're already allowing the
other things we would need to support lengthKind 'pattern' also.
We do have a workaround which is to use a string with
encoding iso-8859-1, but that just proves the point that really there is
no reason why hexBinary doesn't allow this.
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