Thanks Mike. Here are my comments: 5.60 Clarifications of Choice Branch Selection when Defaulting (Action 279) I think it is clearer to reword & restructure the first paragraph in 15.1.3 so that it refers to 9.4.3.2. The second paragraph should be dropped, it is not adding anything. "On unparsing there is the question of how the unparser identifies the appropriate schema choice branch corresponding to the data in the Infoset. Note that the Root of the Branch for one or more branches could be a sequence or a choice. The selection of the choice branch to unparse is as follows: The element in the Infoset is used to search the choice branches in the schema, in schema definition order, but without looking inside any complex elements. If the element occurs in a branch, then that branch is selected and if subsequently a processing error occurs, this selection is not revisited (that is, there is no backtracking). If the element in the Infoset does not occur in any branch, then there must exist a choice branch which is capable of being defaulted, as described by Section 9.4.3.2. If no such branch exists it is a processing error. If there is no element in the Infoset, then there must exist a choice branch which is capable of being defaulted, as described by Section 9.4.3.2. If no such branch exists it is a processing error." I don't think the additional paragraph is needed for 9.4.3.2. However, a ction 279 stated that Section 9.4.3.2 was deficient as it does not mention local groups. Maybe we could add at the end... "Any local groups encountered are handled by descending into the group and applying the above rules." 5.63 New property emptyElementParsePolicy (Action 306) Need to add the property to section 22.1. 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 Note: I work Tuesday to Friday From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg@ogf.org> Date: 13/12/2019 21:29 Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DFDL-WG] Actions 279, 293, 314, 306 - Updated new Errata 5.60-5.63 for review Sent by: "dfdl-wg" <dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org> Ok, I created the trackers, they're just "see erratum 5.60" etc. but they're there just for due process. 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 On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:54 PM Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> wrote: I created 4 new errata in the errata document corresponding to Actions 279, 293, 314, and 306. I skipped the route of creating trackers first - just to reduce the number of steps. The updated errata document for review has been uploaded to redmine here: https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13384?download= I also have added numerous formatting related change items to the tracker for minor/typographical changes here: https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/233 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ogf.org_mailman_listinfo_dfdl-2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=AJa9ThEymJXYnOqu84mJuw&m=tdPrW-4rGLCMVW2Zlumldwkjd_0thtcez0WcEEzyODA&s=V4ZqYFhUjxK-XO50pXAU7jcik8AoocWGB9yKkHRKGo0&e= 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