Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Spec Improvements #23

Open
mbeckerle opened this issue Jan 26, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Spec Improvements #23

mbeckerle opened this issue Jan 26, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
DFDL 2.0 For issues associated with DFDL v2.0 (next major revision)

Comments

@mbeckerle
Copy link
Collaborator

For Section 9.2.7

Consider inserting another example here of an element which has all 4 representations distinguishable usefully. e.g., nillable with nilValue '-' and NVDP 'none', initiator and terminator with EVDP 'both' and default value a string with two quotation marks. An assertion should insist the value is not the nil nor empty rep so that valid Infoset data will not be ambiguous on unparsing. Absent rep may or may not be a parse error, with a forward reference to the section on separator suppression policy.

For Section 14.2.3.1

Would be good to have a parsing example corresponding to this, i.e., that is legal, and expresses the infoset with trailing nil.

In general more examples are helpful here. The three-pass example may be useful here to drive the point home about canonicalization.

@mbeckerle mbeckerle added the DFDL 2.0 For issues associated with DFDL v2.0 (next major revision) label Jan 26, 2021
@mbeckerle
Copy link
Collaborator Author

13.11.1 The dfdl:calendarPatternProperty

The table should distinguish parse behavior (what is accepted) from what is output when unparsing.

For example, is it possible to get any of the day-of-week E patterns to output "TUE" for Tuesday, i.e., all uppercase?
For parsing there seems to be no distinction between E, EE, and EEE, but perhaps there is unparser behavior differences?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
DFDL 2.0 For issues associated with DFDL v2.0 (next major revision)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant