[DFDL-WG] Minutes from 10/3 meeting

[Steve Hanson]

Mike et al

Some comments on proposal-on-facets.doc prior to today's extra call:

- I had come to the same conclusion about deriving the dfdl:length of 
decimals etc from the min/max/inclusive/exclusive or totalDigits facets - 
it's a tooling feature not a DFDL spec feature. I did wonder whether that 
same argument could be applied to deriving dfdl:length of strings from 
length/maxLength but that would force the user to enter the same length 
twice which is poor usability.  So I am happy with the proposed scope of 
dfdl:lengthKind="useSchemaFacet". Should we change the enum to 
"useSchemaLength" ?

- I don't think we should be considering dropping 
min/max/inclusive/exclusive or totalDigits facets.  I might have a binary 
integer that I want to validate against a range - such an integer would 
not have a numberFormat.

- Dropping pattern facet prevents a user from validating that a fixed 
length or delimited string contains certain characters, eg, is pure 
alphabetic. I think pattern facet should be retained. We have them in MRM 
for validation so dropping is a functional loss.

- Let's only drop those facets that don't have a sensible validation 
semantic in DFDL. That to me means whitespace only. 

Regards, Steve

Steve Hanson
WebSphere Message Brokers
Hursley, UK
Internet: smh at uk.ibm.com
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848



Mike Beckerle <beckerle at us.ibm.com> 
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
03/10/2007 22:19

To
dfdl-wg at ogf.org
cc

Subject
[DFDL-WG] Minutes from 10/3 meeting







Attached is revised "facets" document based on discussion in the meeting. 

Meeting friday on defaults/nulls/optionals. 

Also discussed: OGF upcoming meeting - alan going - goals for this are - 
udpate on our progress and recruiting. 

Also discussed: XPath 2.0 - spec is so huge it makes an excess burden for 
DFDL implementations if we say our expression language is all of Xpath 
2.0. 
Can we subset it? E.g., XPath 2.0 language constructs, but with the 
smaller XPath 1.0 function library? 
This is not enough as we want to avoid even some language things e.g., we 
don't need the  iteration constructs. What else? 

Agreed that the most critical thing is that our path language is 
consistent with XPath 2.0 semantics. 

Alan writing up a proposal. 


Mike Beckerle
STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing
IBM Software Group
Information Platform and Solutions
Westborough, MA 01581
direct: voice and FAX 508-599-7148
assistant: Pam Riordan 
                 priordan at us.ibm.com 
                 508-599-7046
--
  dfdl-wg mailing list
  dfdl-wg at 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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20071005/2d044d4d/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: proposal-on-facets.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 72704 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20071005/2d044d4d/attachment-0001.obj