On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Steve Hanson
<smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
Just checking - did we close on this?
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF
DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
----- Forwarded by Steve
Hanson/UK/IBM on 21/01/2013 18:38 -----
From:
Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
To:
Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
Cc:
dfdl-wg@ogf.org
Date:
19/11/2012 21:08
Subject:
Re: [DFDL-WG]
proposed clarification/narrowing - no twos-complement decimal, integer
or nonNegativeInteger
Do we have a section where this goes?
There are lots of implied implementation limits.
Maximum string length?
Maximum hexbinary length?
Maximum number of packed digits in various numbers.
Maximum length of a delimiter?
Maximum length of a fixed attribute?
Maximum length of a pattern regex expression?
Maximum length of a regular expression?
There's also limits on buffering of data for unparsing, etc.
There's also limits on lookahead/speculation. I.e., how far an implementation
is willing to speculate forward.
etc.
For some types these are clear: e.g., binary xs:int is 32 bits max.
Do we need a numbered section on implementation specific limits.
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
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg