[DFDL-WG] Fwd: Implementation limits

[Cranford, Jonathan W.]

Mike,

I saw some verbiage in Errata 13 about implementation limits and regex match time limit.  Look at 2.120.

Not sure if that's what you're looking for or not, but it sounds like a match.

HTH,

Jonathan

>-----Original Message-----
>From: dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
>Of Mike Beckerle
>Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:46 PM
>To: dfdl-wg at ogf.org
>Subject: [DFDL-WG] Fwd: Implementation limits
>
>
>Just reactivating this old stale thread. I don't see any language about this in the
>current draft I am working on which has all the v12 errata in it.
>
>Do we think this is needed? If so an action item to create the language is needed.
>
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>
>Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM
>Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Implementation limits
>To: Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com>
>Cc: dfdl-wg at ogf.org
>
>
>There is a section in the material about error types/kinds on implementation limit
>errors.
>
>It gives examples of implementation limits that might exist in different
>implementations.
>
>Today we found another interesting one: regex match time limit.
>
>...mike
>
>
>On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Steve Hanson <smh at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>	Just checking - did we close on this?
>
>	Regards
>
>	Steve Hanson
>	Architect, Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
>	Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/>
>	IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
>	smh at uk.ibm.com <mailto:smh at uk.ibm.com>
>	tel:+44-1962-815848 <tel:%2B44-1962-815848>
>	----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 21/01/2013 18:38 -----
>
>	From:        Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>
>	To:        Steve Hanson/UK/IBM at IBMGB,
>	Cc:        dfdl-wg at ogf.org
>	Date:        19/11/2012 21:08
>	Subject:        Re: [DFDL-WG] proposed clarification/narrowing - no twos-
>complement decimal, integer or nonNegativeInteger
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>
>	Do we have a section where this goes?
>
>	There are lots of implied implementation limits.
>
>	Maximum string length?
>	Maximum hexbinary length?
>	Maximum number of packed digits in various numbers.
>
>	Maximum length of a delimiter?
>	Maximum length of a fixed attribute?
>	Maximum length of a pattern regex expression?
>	Maximum length of a regular expression?
>
>	There's also limits on buffering of data for unparsing, etc.
>
>	There's also limits on lookahead/speculation. I.e., how far an
>implementation is willing to speculate forward.
>
>	etc.
>
>	For some types these are clear: e.g., binary xs:int is 32 bits max.
>
>	Do we need a numbered section on implementation specific limits.
>
>	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
>	  https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology |
>www.tresys.com
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology |
>www.tresys.com
>