Re: Can you change the DFDL specification to have trailingEmptyLax, please?

["Beckerle, Mike" <mb...@tresys.com>]

I created a DFDL Workgroup tracker for these suggestions:

https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/362


________________________________
From: Beckerle, Mike <mb...@tresys.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 5:41 PM
To: users@daffodil.apache.org <us...@daffodil.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Can you change the DFDL specification to have trailingEmptyLax, please?

I probably should start a topic with the DFDL Workgroup which is property name/value cleanups.

There are many inconsistencies like:

lengthKind="explicit" but occursCountKind="expression"

strict/lax not consistently used

There are things that are setting policies that don't end with the suffix "Policy", which we adopted late in the game.

Anything like this is going to be a phased-in kind of thing. I.e., we start accepting the new/changed values, but don't enforce that you must use them unless you set some flag that makes it not allow the older deprecated values/prop-names.



________________________________
From: Costello, Roger L. <co...@mitre.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 2:32 PM
To: users@daffodil.apache.org <us...@daffodil.apache.org>
Subject: Can you change the DFDL specification to have trailingEmptyLax, please?

Hi Folks,

Here are the allowable values for separatorSuppressionPolicy

never | trailingEmptyStrict | trailingEmpty | anyEmpty

Mike tells me, "The word 'Strict' mean 'must.' This follows the XSD precedent which uses strict/lax in this way."

And Mike also notes this about trailingEmpty, "Probably should have been trailingEmptyLax to be clearer."  I agree. Can we get this changed in the DFDL specification (and, of course, changed in Daffodil) please?

/Roger