Here’s what I suspect: Both MBTK and Daffodil hard-coded this as an
undocumented exception to the rule.
Garriss - There is no special case or undocumented exception .. It is
implemented as per the spec.
Your question - How the general purpose format becomes visible to the
artifacts in the file ..
Note we have default format defined ( hilited in bold) which references
the general purpose format ; as a results any attribute defined in global
general purpose format is available to the default format and hence to all
artifacts in the current file.. This is the consistent approach and
pattern used in our implementation..
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"
xmlns:fmt="http://www.ibm.com/dfdl/GeneralPurposeFormat"
xmlns:ibmSchExtn="http://www.ibm.com/schema/extensions" xmlns:xsd=
"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
http://www.ibm.com/dfdl/GeneralPurposeFormat" schemaLocation=
"IBMdefined/GeneralPurposeFormat.xsd" />
xsd:annotation
http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/">
Suman Kalia
IBM Canada Lab
WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead
Tel: 905-413-3923 T/L 313-3923
Email: kalia@ca.ibm.com
For info on Message broker
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.ht...
From: "Garriss Jr., James P."
To: "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" ,
Date: 04/25/2013 10:20 AM
Subject: [DFDL-WG] MBTK and Daffodil - Intentioning Violating
Property Scoping Rules?
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org
(Emotions are hard to convey in email; please trust me when I say that I
am writing this email with kindness and friendliness!)
In section 8 it says, “The dfdl:format annotation on the top level
xs:schema declaration provides defaults for the DFDL representation
properties at every DFDL-annotatable component contained in the schema
document. They do not apply to any components in any included or imported
schema document (these may have their own defaults).”
If I understand this, it means that when properties are defined using
dfdl:format in one DFDL schema file, they are out of scope for any other
DFDL schema file.
So if schema A defines some properties and includes schema B, the
properties are out of scope in schema B.
Similarly, if schema A includes schema B and schema B defines some
properties, the properties are out of scope in schema A.
Is that right? I think so, and I have empirically confirmed this in both
tools.
Ok, so you know where this going, right? Why does the following line
work?
http://www.ibm.com/dfdl/GeneralPurposeFormat"
schemaLocation="IBMdefined/GeneralPurposeFormat.xsd"/>
According to the spec, it shouldn’t. Yet both tools support it.
But if you make any changes to the GeneralPurposeFormat, it breaks. You
can’t rename it. You can’t put it in a different folder. Etc.
Here’s what I suspect: Both MBTK and Daffodil hard-coded this as an
undocumented exception to the rule.
I think you want to have your cake (properties are out of scope) and eat
it, too (except when we want them to be in scope because repeating all the
properties in every DFDL file is a pain).
If I’m wrong, just let me know. It’s entirely possible that I don’t
really understand what’s going here.
But if I’m right, then you guys should not do this.
· If the spec makes sense, then you should follow the spec.
· If the spec doesn’t make sense, then you should change the spec.
· If the spec needs an exception to the rule for this one case, then
add an exception and follow it.
To intentionally break the spec in an undocumented fashion seems wrong.--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
