I have a long-standing concern about the usability of dfdl:lengthKind, which others in IBM are encountering when modeling real life formats such as EDI. My main concern is below. For example, what's the semantic of setting different values on the element and the sequence? <xs:element name="container" dfdl:lengthKind="implicit"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence dfdl:separator="@" dfdl:lengthKind="implicit"> <xs:element name="one" type="xs:string" dfdl:lengthKind="delimited" /> <xs:element name="two" type="xs:string" dfdl:lengthKind="delimited" /> <xs:element name="three" type="xs:string" dfdl:lengthKind="delimited" /> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> It gets even more noticeable if I set a scoping dfdl:lengthKind on the complex type. I propose that we limit dfdl:lengthKind to elements only. It means that the length of a xs:sequence or xs:choice is always and implicitly given by its chidren, and if you want to provide an explicit length or a length prefix you must use a complex element to wrap the sequence or choice. We have looked at the implications on dfdl:choiceKind for choices, and dfdl:occursKind on arrays, and the proposal works happily in those scenarios. There's an analogy here with not alowing sequences and choices to repeat, only elements. It also simplifies the grammar, in the sense that any excess fill characters in a 'box' are always considered part of the element when parsing. I'd like to discuss this on today's call. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 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