Alan, Mike Thanks for the feedback. Here is latest version that addresses all comments except where noted below. The biggest changes are: - Trimming & padding are now part of the 'extraction' & 'insertion' phases, and not conversion. - Complex element separated from simple element - Simple type / local element / global element distinctions called out - Repeat properties pulled forward into own phase Notes: 1) Mike - I agree that dfdl:inputValueCalc and dfdl:outputValueCalc should not be allowed in dfdl:format annotation (ie, scoping). Spec & xsds should be updated. 2) Mike - you say that escape schemes are needed when looking for initiators - we should discuss - I'm not sure this is a real requirement in practice - I've never come across this. 3) Mike - the DFDL parser/unparser is driven by model position - not by infoset position - you only get elements in the infoset. 4) Mike - I don't think that dfdl:initiatedContent is needed when unparsing. 5) Alan - encoding and byteOrder do apply for sequence, choice and any, because there could be markup involved. 6) Alan - lengthKind = 'pattern' - is this something that we should support on complex elements - assumed so for now. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 13/05/2009 10:25 ----- My markup on this attached - mostly using comment balloons on the side. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair | CTO | Oco, Inc. Tel: 781-810-2125 | 100 Fifth Ave., 4th Floor, Waltham MA 02451 | mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com Alan Powell/UK/IBM 11/05/2009 16:57 To Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc dfdl-wg@ogf.org, dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org Subject Re: [DFDL-WG] DFDL: Action 027 - rework of property precedence - plus issues arising Steve Comments I don't think the tables answer the precedence of padding, escaping and encoding that we had when discussing escape schemes. On parsing it should be remove padding, remove escape characters, apply encoding. On unparsing it is the reverse but the tables look the same. I think the difficulty is that escape scheme is used for identification and extraction but also during conversion. I don't think the core properties (inputvaluecalc, etc) apply to sequence, choice or any. xxxPadKind is checked before xxxPadCharacter, xxpadxxx Calendar-binary. binaryCalendarFormatRef is only used when binCalRep = packed or bcd Alan Powell MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley, Winchester, SO21 2JN, England Notes Id: Alan Powell/UK/IBM email: alan_powell@uk.ibm.com Tel: +44 (0)1962 815073 Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 08/05/2009 17:24 Subject: [DFDL-WG] DFDL: Action 027 - rework of property precedence - plus issues arising I've created a separate property precedence for each schema object that can carry non-scoping DFDL properties (attached for review). The following issues were noted: 1) Missing property dfdl:textBooleanJustification - similar properties exist for string, number and calendar types. 2) What is the rule when the same DFDL properties occur on a xs:simpleType and a xs:element that uses that type? Does this work a) like element/group references (ie, properties combined with element winning) or b) like complex element and its sequence (ie, element and simpleType are considered separate objects)? I don't think section 10 covers this case. 3) Should we allow the DFDL nil & default control properties on a simple type? xs:nillable and xs:default are element only attributes in xsd. Spec currently allows this. 4) Should we allow DFDL occurs properties on global elements? Whether something repeats is a particle thing. Spec currently allows this. (IBM's WTX and MRM don't allow this). 5) Missing work item to get BiDi properties into shape and incorporated into spec. Should these be grouped, like escape scheme, calendar scheme, etc? Do they apply to calendar and number types? 6) Should dfdl:integerBooleanXXXRep be renamed dfdl:binaryBooleanXXXRep ? 7) We might want to reconsider the name of the new flag dfdl:initiated - it could be read that the xs:sequence itself is initiated rather than its children. 8) Should dfdl:initiated also apply to xs:choice? 9) Draft 33 property precedence had dfdl:outputLengthCalc - but that is not in the spec anywhere else? Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 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 [attachment "Property Precedence 034.doc" deleted by Alan Powell/UK/IBM] -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org http://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 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