Steve Lawrence from the Daffodil project has observed that we're not particularly consistent about delimiters and the %ES; entity. We allow WSP* with caveat that you can't have initiatedContent, but we disallow ES. There is a use case for optional delimiters e.g., initator="%CR;%LF; %ES;" meaning absorb and discard an optional CRLF. Without %ES we end up having to model this syntax as an optional hidden element. Thoughts? ...mikeb 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
On the face of it, yes it does seem inconsistent. The point being that
"%WSP*;" is the same as "%ES; %WSP+;" (on parsing, longest match is taken;
on unparsing nothing is output).
In our NACHA xsds we have:
participants (2)
-
Mike Beckerle
-
Steve Hanson