4. Infoset codepage and encoding The spec does not say what codepage and encoding is used for string fields. I wanted to comment on this. There are three choices here: 1. unicode codepoints - we may need to preserve the mapping table (from representation encoding to unicode) as part of the infoset. 2. "As Encoded" codepoints - we must add the encoding to the infoset. 3. Both In favor of unicode codepoints - simplicity. Minor issue is that some mappings will lose information making perfect round-tripping of string contents impossible. E.g., EBCDIC has two different line-endings both of which normally are translated to ASCII/Unicode linefeed. Hence, translating back is ambiguous. In favor of "as encoded" - simplicity. We just add an encoding attribute to the string infoset object which returns the information that the dfdl:encoding representation property contained. Note that the encoding information really is already available via the schema component associated with the string, so there is some redundancy here. Also, there's the issue when dealing with this of whether one wants codepoints, or raw access to the bytes. E.g., if the encoding is UTF-8 or shifted JIS, then the characters take up 1 or more bytes. Do you want the bytes, or the interpreted code points or both? In favor of "both" - complexity, but eliminates all the ambiguity. My suggestion: keep it simple for v1.0 - Choose number 1 - because we can always expand the capabilities later by providing access to the unencoded representation one way or another. If you badly need infoset-level contents which expose the actual representation character codes, you can always model this as an array of bytes instead of a character string. ...mike Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair | CTO | Oco, Inc. Tel: 781-810-2125 | 100 Fifth Ave., 4th Floor, Waltham MA 02451 | <mailto:mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com