Thanks Jonathan.

I suggest that on today's call we go through all your bulleted items and agree whether the bullet is -defined or -dependent, and what if any editorial changes are needed.

Regards
 
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848



From:        "Cranford, Jonathan W." <jcranford@mitre.org>
To:        "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>,
Date:        18/02/2014 16:17
Subject:        [DFDL-WG] first half of implementation-specific behavior review
Sent by:        dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org

---

All,

Attached is the first half of my review of implementation-specific behavior in the 1.0.4 version of the DFDL specification.  I categorized each feature/behavior as either implementation-defined or implementation-dependent.

I put these all in a Word document to simplify review. I don't have a preference for whether it remains as a separate document (as with action 140) or whether it gets folded into an errata document.

Fyi,

--
Jonathan W. Cranford <jcranford@mitre.org>
Senior Information Systems Engineer
The MITRE Corporation (http://www.mitre.org)
801-572-7446 [office]    801-903-3431 [cell]
AIM, XMPP: jcranford@mitre.org    

--
 dfdl-wg mailing list
 dfdl-wg@ogf.org
 https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg

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