elementFormDefault and the form attribute on element declarations
Neither the term "elementFormDefault" nor the term "unqualified" appear in the DFDL Spec. So we're silent about whether these are allowed or not in DFDL schemas. We should specify what of this XML Schema behavior is allowed, which I believe means add a line to each of the lists in section 5.1 of things used and not-used/reserved from XML Schema. FYI: Today the Daffodil implementation implements elementFormDefault on the xs:schema but not the form attribute on element declarations. We have tests that exercise elementFormDefault in qualified and unqualified and not specified at all (which defaults to "unqualified" behavior in XSD, so we're consistent with that.) Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>
Section 5.1 of the spec has 'Standard XSDL namespace management' in its list of what a DFDL schema consists of. Section 5.1 does not go on explicitly to exclude 'elementFormDefault' attribute or 'form' attribute, so my reading is that both these are therefore allowed. We could expand what is meant by 'Standard XSDL namespace management'. But if we do that we should make sure that we do so in any other areas that are a bit vague. For example, we disallow complex type derivation and substitution groups so does this imply that 'final' and 'block' on complex types and elements are prohibited regardless of setting? For example, we disallow identity constraints but does that mean that 'id' can never be used on schema objects? 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: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org> Date: 15/10/2014 23:25 Subject: [DFDL-WG] elementFormDefault and the form attribute on element declarations Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org Neither the term "elementFormDefault" nor the term "unqualified" appear in the DFDL Spec. So we're silent about whether these are allowed or not in DFDL schemas. We should specify what of this XML Schema behavior is allowed, which I believe means add a line to each of the lists in section 5.1 of things used and not-used/reserved from XML Schema. FYI: Today the Daffodil implementation implements elementFormDefault on the xs:schema but not the form attribute on element declarations. We have tests that exercise elementFormDefault in qualified and unqualified and not specified at all (which defaults to "unqualified" behavior in XSD, so we're consistent with that.) Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy -- 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
participants (2)
-
Mike Beckerle -
Steve Hanson