[DFDL-WG] Errata doc updated with draft errata 5.39 to 5.59 - from all Trackers

[Steve Hanson]

Mike

Comments added. I used LibreOffice I'm ok using this for adding comments 
to small docs but not to the spec itself. 



I've indicated below and via email to you where significant comments 
apply.

Regards
 
Steve Hanson
IBM Hybrid Integration, Hursley, UK
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
smh at uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
mob:+44-7717-378890
Note: I work Tuesday to Friday 



From:   Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl at gmail.com>
To:     DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg at ogf.org>
Date:   14/10/2019 19:58
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [DFDL-WG] Errata doc updated with draft errata 
5.39 to 5.59 - from     all Trackers
Sent by:        "dfdl-wg" <dfdl-wg-bounces at ogf.org>



I have updated our document gwde-dfdl-experience-4-v0.9.docx (The Errata 
doc) with draft errata for all known issues that had trackers. This adds 
Errata 5.39 to 5.59. 

This is mostly just copying language that was in the trackers into the 
Errata document, but in some cases language had to be consolidated across 
the original tracker description and subsequent update comments. In some 
cases I had to compose descriptive language.

5.41 is not complete, as it involves review of all occurrences of MUST, 
MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, etc. throughout the document. I plan to 
handle this after all other errata are incorporated into the spec, with a 
single sweep, then people can review by looking for those keywords. 

In reviewing these errata, I suggest they are bucketed into those that are 
not controversial, and are best reviewed by editing them into the 
specification, and reviewing there, versus those where there is more 
concern as to whether the described change is correct and complete.

The list of these new errata is below. They are not controversial (to me) 
except where noted.

5.39
5.40
5.41 - one identified change not controvercial. The sweeping pass to 
examine all MUST/SHOULD, etc. is separate.
5.42
5.43
5.44 - needs careful review
5.45 - needs careful review
5.46 - new language - needs review. It is a lengthy discussion. Perhaps 
can be made shorter ? 
5.47 - needs careful review
5.48 - do we need all 3 overloads of fn:error()? - also, all behavior here 
is very implementation-dependent.
5.49
5.50
5.51
5.52
5.53
5.54
5.55
5.56
5.57
5.58
5.59 - needs careful review - description may not match desired/actual 
behavior of implemetations

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
--
  dfdl-wg mailing list
  dfdl-wg at ogf.org
  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ogf.org_mailman_listinfo_dfdl-2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=AJa9ThEymJXYnOqu84mJuw&m=cVL8kkwB_jf-5QRogdHrdHc5wjEDq_CwCUiditpWveI&s=-f8CphdmN7UvShjoQLJh7tDttzEgu1Hya_vHFNdomRw&e= 


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/20191016/a2d8182a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gwde-dfdl-experience-4-v0.9-smh-comments.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 57022 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20191016/a2d8182a/attachment-0001.obj>