I have a case where IBM DFDL and Daffodil differ, but I think both are
correct so this is just a case where users have to tolerate variation in
behavior:
The data is "2010-12-30"
The DFDL spec says the parser behavior is as for pattern "yyyy-MM-dd",
which does not have any character for time zone information.
So the time zone information is coming from the dfdl:calendarTimeZone="UTC"
property.
But this question isn't about the parsing/unparsing behavior. It's about
what date/time components end up in the infoset and how those get projected
into XML by different DFDL implementations.
The problem is that there are multiple equivalent (according to XML/XSD and
ISO 8601) representations in the infoset for this information.
Ex:
<date1>2010-12-30+00:00</date1> (Note: current Daffodil behavior)
or
<date1>2010-12-30Z</date1> (Note: current IBM DFDL behavior)
I believe these are 100% equivalent according to ISO8601 which is the
standard for date/time referenced from XML/XSD.
If this is acceptable then there's no action here. It's just an equivalence
that users have to expect.
So I'm just raising this to get opinions.
Comments?
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
