Jonathan Cranford reported two issues in the spec: 1. Pages 11-12 of the draft include a sample DFDL schema for a comma-separated format. I asked you about this example before, and you told me that there's no ambiguity between having a comma (,) as a separator and as the textStandardGroupingSeparator. I think I understand why (there's a question on that below). Regardless of why, though, I think that having the same character as both the separator and textStandardGroupingSeparator is a potential point of confusion, especially this early in the document. So I recommend reworking the example to avoid the appearance of ambiguity and avoid relying on the technical workings of textNumberPattern, which hasn’t been introduced yet. Is this example not ambiguous because none of the textNumberPattern attributes contain a grouping separator? If so, couldn’t the textStandardGroupingSeparator attribute just be removed from the example so that others don't get confused on it like I did? 2. Minor editorial comment - Page 15 – I think 3rd bullet should end in period instead of a comma, for consistency with other bullets.
1. This example is not ambiguous because none of the textNumberPattern characters are a grouping separator. The textStandardGroupingSeparator would be ignored by the parser (see errata 2.24). The property should be removed from the elements in the example. 2. Correct. Plus... 3. Back to the CSV example on p11, the byteOrder property has no effect on the sequence and should be removed. 4. Ditto the Binary example on p10, the byteOrder property has no effect on the sequence and should be removed. 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: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org, Date: 25/06/2013 16:00 Subject: [DFDL-WG] small spec issues Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org Jonathan Cranford reported two issues in the spec: 1. Pages 11-12 of the draft include a sample DFDL schema for a comma-separated format. I asked you about this example before, and you told me that there's no ambiguity between having a comma (,) as a separator and as the textStandardGroupingSeparator. I think I understand why (there's a question on that below). Regardless of why, though, I think that having the same character as both the separator and textStandardGroupingSeparator is a potential point of confusion, especially this early in the document. So I recommend reworking the example to avoid the appearance of ambiguity and avoid relying on the technical workings of textNumberPattern, which hasn’t been introduced yet. Is this example not ambiguous because none of the textNumberPattern attributes contain a grouping separator? If so, couldn’t the textStandardGroupingSeparator attribute just be removed from the example so that others don't get confused on it like I did? 2. Minor editorial comment - Page 15 – I think 3rd bullet should end in period instead of a comma, for consistency with other bullets. -- 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