|
No
| Action |
|
066
| Investigate format for defining test
cases
25/11:IBM to see if it is possible to publish its test case format. 04/12: no update ... 17/02: IBM is willing in principle to publish the test case format and some of the test cases. May need some time to build a 'compliance suite' 24/03: No progress 03/03: Discussions have been taking place on the subset of tests that will be provided. 10/03: work is progressing 17/03: work is progressing 31/03: work is progressing 14/04: And XML test case format has been defined and is being tested. 21/04. Schema for TDML defined. Need to define how this and the test cases will be made public 05/05: Work still progressing 12/05: Work still progressing 02/06: Work still progressing on technical and legal considerations ... 14/07: work continues |
|
085
| ALL: publicize Public comments phase
to ensure a good review..
14/04: see minutes 21/04: Press release, OMG and other standards bodies. 05/05: Alan and Steve H have contacted other standards bodies. Will ask them to add comments on spec 15/05: still no public comments 02/06: No public comments 16/06: Public comments period has ended with no external comments. Alan had posted changes made in draft 041. Steve suggested send a note to the WG highlighting these changes. Steve also suggested requesting an extension as other IBM groups may review. We discussed whether this was necessary as changes will need to be made during the implementation phase anyway. Alan to ask OGF what the process is for changes post public comment. 23/06: Still no comments. Alan will contact OGF to understand the rest of the process. 30/06: Alan has emailed Joel asking what the process is now public comment period is over andcan we update the published version with WG updates. No response yet. 07/07: No response. Alan will chase up 14/07: No response from Joel. Sent email to Greg Newby but no response. |
|
086
| AP: Nils and Defaults during unparsing
- update table
31/03: TK to documetn use cases for parsing 14/04: Investigate new property to control empty string behaviour. 21/04: After investigation a new property is not required. New rules developed and tables updated. Need examples of complexTypes to confirm tables apply. Review Nils, defaulting spec section. 05/05: Discussed defaulting complex elements. Tables updated but need to add terminator. SH; to confirm WMD behaviour when infoset item has no value on unparsing Need to describe defaulting choices. 15/05: More discussion. Alan updating sections 26/05: Discussed draft updates. Stephanie to confirm asserts do not make an element required. Alan will update draft.. All: review rest of draft. 02/06: Alan updated description. Please review. Discussed Stephanie's example using discriminators. Decided no changes needed. 16/05: went through Steves comments. Steve to update draft. 23/06: Steve's updates to the rules discussed. See minutes. Rest of document needs updating. 30/06: Discussed Alans updates. Some corrections. Alan will send out updated copy for review before next call. 07/07: Discussed Alan updates and Tim and Steve's comments. Still some corrections and updates. 14/07: Discussed Alan updates (v9) Still some corrections and updates. |
|
099
| Splitting the specification in simpler
sections.
07/07: Steve sent a proposal but not discussed. Alan will arrange a separate call. 14/07:Discussed Steve's proposal and Suman's and Alan's comments. Need to add choice, validation, facets. Also how does an implementation declare which subsets it supports. Suggested levels and/or profiles. Steve highlighted a problem when a DFDL schema from an implementation of just the core functions was moved to a full DFDL implementation what should happen about the missing properties. Does the full implementation need to be aware of subsets of functions? Should it raise a schema definition error for use of a function not in the subset. |
|
101
| Semantics of 'fixed' |
|
102
| Clarify the specification of error
reporting from a DFDL processor - section 2.3 needs to be updated |
|
103
| Asserts and discriminators
- specify the scope of forward references. Must be downward-only. The expression must be resolvable by the time the component on which it is positioned goes out of scope - otherwise it is a processing error. |
|
104
| Expressions
Discuss error behaviour when evaluating an expression in various contexts - All properties: wrong type returned : schema definition error exception when evaluating expression : schema definition error referenced variables/paths not available : schema definition error - Properties which allow a forward reference referenced variables/paths not available : no error. DFDL processor continues processing until the expression result is available, then acts on the result. |
|
105
| Grammar for DFDL expression
- currently allows multiple predicates on a single expression. Sounds as if this was unintended. |
| Regards
|
| Alan Powell |
| Development - MQSeries, Message Broker, ESB |
| IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| IBM |
| MP211, Hursley Park |
| Hursley, SO21 2JN |
| United Kingdom |
| Phone: +44-1962-815073 |
| e-mail: alan_powell@uk.ibm.com |
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