Just checking - did we close on this? Regards Steve Hanson Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh@uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 21/01/2013 18:38 ----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 19/11/2012 21:08 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] proposed clarification/narrowing - no twos-complement decimal, integer or nonNegativeInteger Do we have a section where this goes? There are lots of implied implementation limits. Maximum string length? Maximum hexbinary length? Maximum number of packed digits in various numbers. Maximum length of a delimiter? Maximum length of a fixed attribute? Maximum length of a pattern regex expression? Maximum length of a regular expression? There's also limits on buffering of data for unparsing, etc. There's also limits on lookahead/speculation. I.e., how far an implementation is willing to speculate forward. etc. For some types these are clear: e.g., binary xs:int is 32 bits max. Do we need a numbered section on implementation specific limits. 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
There is a section in the material about error types/kinds on implementation limit errors. It gives examples of implementation limits that might exist in different implementations. Today we found another interesting one: regex match time limit. ...mike On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
Just checking - did we close on this?
Regards
Steve Hanson Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK* **smh@uk.ibm.com* <smh@uk.ibm.com> tel:+44-1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 21/01/2013 18:38 -----
From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 19/11/2012 21:08 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] proposed clarification/narrowing - no twos-complement decimal, integer or nonNegativeInteger ------------------------------
Do we have a section where this goes?
There are lots of implied implementation limits.
Maximum string length? Maximum hexbinary length? Maximum number of packed digits in various numbers.
Maximum length of a delimiter? Maximum length of a fixed attribute? Maximum length of a pattern regex expression? Maximum length of a regular expression?
There's also limits on buffering of data for unparsing, etc.
There's also limits on lookahead/speculation. I.e., how far an implementation is willing to speculate forward.
etc.
For some types these are clear: e.g., binary xs:int is 32 bits max.
Do we need a numbered section on implementation specific limits.
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
-- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
Just reactivating this old stale thread. I don't see any language about this in the current draft I am working on which has all the v12 errata in it. Do we think this is needed? If so an action item to create the language is needed. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Implementation limits To: Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org There is a section in the material about error types/kinds on implementation limit errors. It gives examples of implementation limits that might exist in different implementations. Today we found another interesting one: regex match time limit. ...mike On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
Just checking - did we close on this?
Regards
Steve Hanson Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, *OGF DFDL Working Group* <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK* **smh@uk.ibm.com* <smh@uk.ibm.com> tel:+44-1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 21/01/2013 18:38 -----
From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 19/11/2012 21:08 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] proposed clarification/narrowing - no twos-complement decimal, integer or nonNegativeInteger ------------------------------
Do we have a section where this goes?
There are lots of implied implementation limits.
Maximum string length? Maximum hexbinary length? Maximum number of packed digits in various numbers.
Maximum length of a delimiter? Maximum length of a fixed attribute? Maximum length of a pattern regex expression? Maximum length of a regular expression?
There's also limits on buffering of data for unparsing, etc.
There's also limits on lookahead/speculation. I.e., how far an implementation is willing to speculate forward.
etc.
For some types these are clear: e.g., binary xs:int is 32 bits max.
Do we need a numbered section on implementation specific limits.
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
-- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com -- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
Mike, I saw some verbiage in Errata 13 about implementation limits and regex match time limit. Look at 2.120. Not sure if that's what you're looking for or not, but it sounds like a match. HTH, Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Beckerle Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:46 PM To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Subject: [DFDL-WG] Fwd: Implementation limits
Just reactivating this old stale thread. I don't see any language about this in the current draft I am working on which has all the v12 errata in it.
Do we think this is needed? If so an action item to create the language is needed.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Implementation limits To: Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org
There is a section in the material about error types/kinds on implementation limit errors.
It gives examples of implementation limits that might exist in different implementations.
Today we found another interesting one: regex match time limit.
...mike
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
Just checking - did we close on this?
Regards
Steve Hanson Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh@uk.ibm.com <mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com> tel:+44-1962-815848 <tel:%2B44-1962-815848> ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 21/01/2013 18:38 -----
From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 19/11/2012 21:08 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] proposed clarification/narrowing - no twos- complement decimal, integer or nonNegativeInteger
________________________________
Do we have a section where this goes?
There are lots of implied implementation limits.
Maximum string length? Maximum hexbinary length? Maximum number of packed digits in various numbers.
Maximum length of a delimiter? Maximum length of a fixed attribute? Maximum length of a pattern regex expression? Maximum length of a regular expression?
There's also limits on buffering of data for unparsing, etc.
There's also limits on lookahead/speculation. I.e., how far an implementation is willing to speculate forward.
etc.
For some types these are clear: e.g., binary xs:int is 32 bits max.
Do we need a numbered section on implementation specific limits.
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
-- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
-----Original Message----- From: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Beckerle Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:46 PM To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Subject: [DFDL-WG] Fwd: Implementation limits
Just reactivating this old stale thread. I don't see any language about
current draft I am working on which has all the v12 errata in it.
Do we think this is needed? If so an action item to create the language is needed.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Implementation limits To: Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org
There is a section in the material about error types/kinds on implementation limit errors.
It gives examples of implementation limits that might exist in different implementations.
Today we found another interesting one: regex match time limit.
...mike
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
Just checking - did we close on this?
Regards
Steve Hanson Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group < http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh@uk.ibm.com <mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com> tel:+44-1962-815848 <tel:%2B44-1962-815848> ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 21/01/2013 18:38 -----
From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 19/11/2012 21:08 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] proposed clarification/narrowing - no twos- complement decimal, integer or nonNegativeInteger
________________________________
Do we have a section where this goes?
There are lots of implied implementation limits.
Maximum string length? Maximum hexbinary length? Maximum number of packed digits in various numbers.
Maximum length of a delimiter? Maximum length of a fixed attribute? Maximum length of a pattern regex expression? Maximum length of a regular expression?
There's also limits on buffering of data for unparsing, etc.
There's also limits on lookahead/speculation. I.e., how far an implementation is willing to speculate forward.
etc.
For some types these are clear: e.g., binary xs:int is 32 bits max.
Do we need a numbered section on implementation specific
Correct. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (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: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>, "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>, Date: 10/07/2013 20:19 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Fwd: Implementation limits Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org Mike, I saw some verbiage in Errata 13 about implementation limits and regex match time limit. Look at 2.120. Not sure if that's what you're looking for or not, but it sounds like a match. HTH, Jonathan this in the limits.
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
-- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
-- Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com
-- 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 (3)
-
Cranford, Jonathan W. -
Mike Beckerle -
Steve Hanson