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