Jonathan Cranford reported two issues in the spec:

1.      Pages 11-12 of the draft include a sample DFDL schema
for a

comma-separated format.  I asked you about this example before, and

you told me that there's no ambiguity between having a comma (,) as a

separator and as the textStandardGroupingSeparator.  I think I

understand why (there's a question on that below). Regardless of why,

though, I think that having the same character as both the separator

and textStandardGroupingSeparator is a potential point of confusion,

especially this early in the document.  So I recommend reworking the

example to avoid the appearance of ambiguity and avoid relying on the

technical workings of textNumberPattern, which hasn’t been introduced

yet.

Is this example not ambiguous because none of the textNumberPattern

attributes contain a grouping separator?  If so, couldn’t the

textStandardGroupingSeparator attribute just be removed from the

example so that others don't get confused on it like I did?

2.      Minor editorial comment - Page 15 – I think 3rd
bullet should

end in period instead of a comma, for consistency with other bullets.

--

  dfdl-wg mailing list

  dfdl-wg@ogf.org

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