Jessie Chab came up with this interesting case. I am hoping someone else remembers somewhere in the spec where this order of evaluation issue is taken up in detail. Consider: <element name="e2"> <sequence separator="|" separatorPosition="infix"> <element name="seps" minOccurs="3" maxOccurs="3"/> <element name="data" maxOccurs='10'> <sequence separator="{ /e2/seps[dfdl:occursIndex()] }"> <element name="num" maxOccurs='10' /> </sequence> </element> </sequence> </element> So we first parse 3 strings separated by a pipe. After that's parsed, lets assume our infoset looks like this: <e2> <seps>;</seps> <seps>-</seps> <seps>#</seps> </e2> After that we will have some 'data' elements (separated by pipes) which each have a sequence of 'num' elements. The question is what are the valid separators of the 'num' elements. I see two potential interpretations. 1) The separator is evaluated once per 'data' element; occursIndex evaluates to index in the 'data' array; valid data might look something like: ;|-|#|a;b;c;d|e-f-g-h|i#j#k#l Note that this means the size of the data array must be less than or equal to the size of the seps array (though that could be worked around using mod 3 arithmetic.) 2) Everytime we need to look for a separator between a num element, we reevaluate the separator expression. This means the occursIndex() references the index in the 'num' array, and so valid data might look something like: ;|-|#|a;b-c#d|e;f-g#h|i;j-k#l Note that this means the size of the num array must be less than or equal to the size of the seps array. I recall we were considering an argument to dfdl:occursIndex() to make exactly this kind of issue clear. I believe we decided against it, as we weren't able to pin down the semantics quite clearly. E.g., in the above, how would you add an argument to the dfdl:occursIndex(...) call that points to the num array, which isn't even in scope at that point? I know we say somewhere in the spec that separator can be defined, in say, the default format of some other schema file. It can be an expression, and that expression isn't evaluated until some sequence which has that separator in scope. Which means the expression can refer to path steps and such that are meaningless at the point where it appears lexically, but will be meaningful for a sequence where that separator expression is in scope. But this problem is slightly different. The question is whether the evaluation is per-item of the sequence, or once for the sequence. ...mikeb 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>