I have updated our document gwde-dfdl-experience-4-v0.9.docx (The Errata doc) with draft errata for all known issues that had trackers. This adds Errata 5.39 to 5.59. This is mostly just copying language that was in the trackers into the Errata document, but in some cases language had to be consolidated across the original tracker description and subsequent update comments. In some cases I had to compose descriptive language. 5.41 is not complete, as it involves review of all occurrences of MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, etc. throughout the document. I plan to handle this after all other errata are incorporated into the spec, with a single sweep, then people can review by looking for those keywords. In reviewing these errata, I suggest they are bucketed into those that are not controversial, and are best reviewed by editing them into the specification, and reviewing there, versus those where there is more concern as to whether the described change is correct and complete. The list of these new errata is below. They are not controversial (to me) except where noted. 5.39 5.40 5.41 - one identified change not controvercial. The sweeping pass to examine all MUST/SHOULD, etc. is separate. 5.42 5.43 5.44 - needs careful review 5.45 - needs careful review 5.46 - new language - needs review. It is a lengthy discussion. Perhaps can be made shorter ? 5.47 - needs careful review 5.48 - do we need all 3 overloads of fn:error()? - also, all behavior here is very implementation-dependent. 5.49 5.50 5.51 5.52 5.53 5.54 5.55 5.56 5.57 5.58 5.59 - needs careful review - description may not match desired/actual behavior of implemetations 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 <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>