[DFDL-WG] Floating elements and unordered groups
Stephanie Fetzer
sfetzer at us.ibm.com
Mon Jan 11 17:37:26 CST 2010
All:
I remember a bit of a conversation on this topic from a while back - one
of the things we were addressing was multi-level unorderedness. An
unordered group (or an ordered group with floating components) within an
unordered group (or an ordered group with floating components). This is
allowed in WTX and we wanted to make sure that it was specifically allowed
in DFDL. We do no restrict unordered groups at all in this respect.
In V34 the DFDL spec contained the concept of "unordered" versus
"unorderedInitiated" but that was removed ( with v35) and the 'children
must be xs:element' phrase was added).
The other goal of the wording in the spec was to make sure that an
unordered group was parsed/serialized the exact same way as an ordered
group with ALL unordered components.
If we have a group with n-1 floating components then that is really the
functional equivalent of having n floating components. The one 'static'
component will not anchor anything and all will still be unordered. If we
had n-2 floating components then we would in fact have two components that
would need to be in the same order relative to each other.
So from that perspective - the wording in 16.5 looks correct to me:
An ordered sequence of n element children with either n or n-1 of those
children with dfdl:floating="true" is equivalent to an unordered sequence
with the same n element children with dfdl:floating="false".
Is the question then - why the wording is Section 16?... "The children of
an unordered sequence must be xs:element."
If so, I did not read that as any type of limitation on the contents of
the element..I can have an element which contains a group of sequences
containing groups. (or have I misunderstood what this is trying to
convey?). Perhaps that phrase isn't really saying anything useful at this
point and should be removed. I don't believe that we want to go back to
the unorderedInitiated concept (where we had a different set of rules for
unordered groups if the content was all initiated).
-My take is that we should consider removing or further explain the "The
children of an unordered sequence must be xs:element." .
-The other note with the "An ordered sequence of n element children with
either n or n-1 of those children with dfdl:floating="true" is equivalent
to an unordered sequence with the same n element children with
dfdl:floating="false". - looks fine as is to me as far as I can see.
-I'd prefer we not reopen the unorderedInitiated concept again.
Cheers,
Stephanie Fetzer
WebSphere Common Transformation
Industry Packs - Software Engineer
From:
Tim Kimber <KIMBERT at uk.ibm.com>
To:
dfdl-wg at ogf.org
Date:
01/11/2010 12:52 PM
Subject:
[DFDL-WG] Floating elements and unordered groups
Sent by:
dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org
Hi all,
I know this area of the specification was only recently resolved, and I
think there may be an inconsistency in the v0.37 wording.
Section 16, re: sequenceKind says: "The children of an unordered sequence
must be xs:element."
Section 16.5 Floating Elements says: "An ordered sequence of n element
children with either n or n-1 of those children with dfdl:floating="true"
is equivalent to an unordered sequence with the same n element children
with dfdl:floating="false". A complex element with dfdl:floating="true"
can have as its content model a sequence with elements that also have
dfdl:floating="true". "
Now suppose that, instead of N element children, there are N-1 floating
element children + one non-floating group. This group will be equivalent
to an unordered group with a non-element member.
If the specification was intending to make life easy for implementers,
then it should probably disallow groups in any non-ordered context,
including when sequenceKind='ordered' and there is at least one floating
component. But I think that would be too restrictive. I would be happy for
the restriction to be lifted entirely. Given that unordered groups can
have dfdl:initiated="false", it will sometimes be necessary to find the
correct member by trial and error ( speculative parsing ) anyway. I don't
think it's any more difficult to speculatively parse a group than to
speculatively parse a complex element.
If I've missed something, and it turns out that the restriction is useful,
then we should
a) tighten up the wording to say that if a group with N members has N or
N-1 floating members, then it must be validated as if it was an unordered
group.
b) consider lifting the restriction in cases where dfdl:initiated="true" (
because it makes things so much easier for the DFDL processor )
regards,
Tim Kimber, Common Transformation Team,
Hursley, UK
Internet: kimbert at uk.ibm.com
Tel. 01962-816742
Internal tel. 246742
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 at ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20100111/aa8fbfe7/attachment.html
More information about the dfdl-wg
mailing list