<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Open Grid Forum: Data Format Description
Language Working Group<br>
<br>
OGF DFDL Working Group Call, October-21-2009<br>
<br>
Attendees</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Suman Kalia (IBM)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Steve Hanson (IBM)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Alan Powell (IBM)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Peter Lambros (IBM)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Steve Marting (Progeny)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Stephanie Fetzer(IBM)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Apologies</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mike Beckerle (Oco)</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>1. Scoping Rules</b></font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Continued the discussion on scoping rules. Alan's had distributed
a new scoping document draft(v6) with input from Steve H and Stephanie.
Suman and Steve H had made comments which we went through on the call.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Suman was concerned that the wording
implied that the dfdl:format on the xs:schema didn't need to provide defaults
for all the dfdl:properties which he thought was a departure from previously.
Others pointed out that that had never been the case and that it was not
possible to validation dfdl:format blocks in isolation only at the point
of use.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Discussed whether the dfdl:defineFormat
annotations should be in the table of annotation points. Alan pointed out
there were other similar annotations, defineNumberFormat, etc. Decided
to remove from the table but mention them below as they are only brought
in scope when referenced.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Discussed the need for more examples
and Alan pointed out that in general we had agreed that the spec
would not contain many examples as the should also be a primer. Agreed
to change one example to element->element ref -> simpleType.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Steve H suggested that following update
to the rules</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><i>Rules</i></font>
<p><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><i>1. Create
an empty working set of "explicit" properties. Create an empty
working set of "default" properties.</i></font>
<p><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif"><i>2.
Move to the innermost schema component in the chain
of references. </i></font>
<p><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif"><i>3. Assemble
its directly relevant "explicit" properties from its local dfdl:ref
(if present) and its local properties (if present), the latter overriding
the former (that is, local wins). Combine these with the current working
set of "explicit" properties. It is a schema definition error
if there is the same property appears twice. Result is a new working set
of "explicit" properties. Obtain directly relevant "default"
properties from in-scope unnamed dfdl:format block (if present). Combine
these with the current working set of "default" properties, the
latter overriding the former (ie, inner wins). Result is a new working
set of "default" properties. </i></font>
<p><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><i>4. Move to the schema
component that references the current component, and repeat step 3. If
there is no referencing component, move to step 5. </i></font>
<p><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial"><i>5. Validate
the resultant set of properties. The "explicit" properties take
priority, "defaults" only used when no "explicit" is
present. It is a schema definition error if a required property is in neither
the "explicit" nor the "default" working sets.</i></font>
<p>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Note: we didn't discuss the suggested
change of disallowing multiple annotations at the same point (other than
for selectors) or the same property in short and long form. Please review
this change.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>2. Resolving points of uncertainty
and parsing rules</b></font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Reviewed the latest draft (v5) that
Alan had distributed. The only change was the introduction of the 'potentially
uncertain' state discussed on the call last week. Alan was not overly
happy with the new concept and will try some other way of describing the
problem.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>3. Comments on Draft 036</b></font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
No comments received. It is now available on gridforge.<b><br>
<br>
4. Go through remaining actions</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Actions updated below</font><font size=2>
</font>
<br><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b><br>
5. Plan to finish DFDL v1</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Alan pointed out that in order to meet
the target of having the document ready for approval at the next OGF meeting
we need to have all the action items resolve in the next month or so. Alan
will produce an outline schedule for completing the spec.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Also discussed if there is any technical
writer support available within IBM to edit the specification. Steve H
will contact Sandy Gao to see who edits the XML schema specification</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Next call 28 October 13:00 UK</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Meeting closed, 14:30</b></font>
<br>
<p><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><b>Actions raised at this meeting</b></font>
<br>
<table border width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=5%>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>No</b></font></div>
<td width=94%><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Action </b></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>062</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SH investigate technical writer support.</font></table>
<p>
<p>
<p><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><b>Current Actions:</b></font>
<table border width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=7%>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>No</b></font></div>
<td width=92%><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Action </b></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>012</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">10/9: Not allocated yet</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/9: No update</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/9: Add calendar binary formats to
actions</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/10: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/1: proposal distributed and discussed.
Will be redistributed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/1: add locale, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">04/02: changed from locale to specific
properties</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">18/2: Need more investigation of ICU
strict/lax behaviour.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: AP to complete asap once the
ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: Calendar has been added to latest
spec version v034 but still a few details to clarify.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: No Progress (low priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/06: No Progress (low priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: SH to check ICU code for lax
calendar behaviour</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">01/07: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: Inconsistencies are being found
in ICU behaviour so Calendars need reviewing again.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: Specific three character short
time zones may not be maintained during round tripping when there
is more than one short form for a time zone offset. Because dates and datetimes
in the infoset only maintain a time zone offset so on unparsing it isn't
possible to say which short form will be selected for a particular offset
when there is more than one possible. Need to document.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: Will produce a list of known
issues.</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>033</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">MB: Need for scope indicator on discriminator</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: In progress within IBM</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: Waiting for TK to return from
leave to complete. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: TK has sent examples shown need
for discriminators beyond choice. Agreed. MB to respond to TK </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding
type indicator to discriminator. MB to provide examples.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/03: Semantic documented in v034.
MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: MB to provide examples of need
for scope indicator on discriminator (but lower priority than action 029)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">....</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: Action re-titled and assigned
to Mike B</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: no progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>037</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All: Approach for XML Schema 1.0 UPA
checks.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: Several non-XML models, when
expressed in their most obvious DFDL Schema form, would fail XML Schema
1.0 Unique Particle Attribution checks that police model ambiguity. And
even re-jigging the model sometimes fails to fix this. Note this is equally
applicable to XMl Schema 1.1 and 1.0. While the DFDL parser/unparser can
happily resolve the ambiguities, the issue is one of definition. If an
XSD editor that implements UPA checks is used to create DFDL Schema, then
errors will be flagged. DFDL may have to adopt the position that: </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement
some/all UPA checks (exact checks tbd)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">b) XML Schema editors that implement
UPA checks will not be suitable for all DFDL models</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">c) If DFDL annotations are removed,
the resulting pure XSD will not always be valid (ie, the equivalent XML
is ambiguous and can't be modelled by XML Schema 1.0)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ongoing in case another solution can
be found.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for opinion
before closing</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions.
Decided need to review all XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: SH or SKK to investigate</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: The concern is that some dfdl
schemas will fail UPA check when validation is turned on or when editted
using tooling that enforces UPA checks. Renaming fields will resolve some/most
issues. Need documentation that describes issue and best practice.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: no change</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: no change</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">01/07: no prgress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: Clarify that this action is to
go through the XML UPA checks to assess impact on dfdl schemas and advice
best practice. Name clashes is just one example. SH or SKK</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: no progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>045</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05 AP: Speculative Parsing</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: Psuedo code has been circulated.
Review for next call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: Comments received and will be
incorporated</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/06: Progress but not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: Discussed briefly</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">01/07: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No progress. MB not happy with
the way the algorithm is documented, need to find a better way.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: No Progress. Will document behaviour
as a set of rules.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: AP distributed proposal and others
commented. Brief discussion AP to incorporate update and reissue</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: Updated proposal was discussed.Comments
will be incorporated into the next version.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: Alan to update proposal to include
array scenario where minOccurs > 0</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: Updated proposal reviewed</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>049</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05 AP Built-in specification description
and schemas</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: No Progress (hope to get these
from test cases)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No progress. Once available,
the examples in the spec should use the dfdl:defineFormat annotations they
provide.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">.....</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: Discussed the real need for this
being in the specification. It seemed that the main value is it define
a schema location for downloading 'known' defaults from the web. </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>051</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Scoping rules.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">MB: to document change to scoping rules
to satisfy implementation concerns</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: MB and SH proposals discussed.
Needs further discussion</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: AP to update presentation with
latest proosal</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: AP had updated presentation.
MB to review</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/07: Discussed at length. Simple types
will now take annotations. Variables will be used for parameters.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No further progress. Needs final
write up.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: AP will document new syntax rules.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: AP has documented new scoping
rules. Not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: Not disussed. AP to update element
reference examples</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: Significant dissatisfaction with
proposed new rules. New proposal developed during call. AP to document.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: New proposal was refined. Details
in minutes.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: Discussed at length. Details
in minutes. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: Discussed at length. Details
in minutes. </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>056</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">resolve lenghtUnit=bits including fillbytes</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: no progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>059</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">9/9: define how encoding, byteorder
and floating point format externally</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: SH to investigate</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>061</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Refactor dfdl:textNumberFormat to remove
dfdl:numberBase. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: Base 2, 8, 16 numbers are invariably
integers without formatting, use of pattern etc is overkill</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: no progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>062</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SH investigate technical writer support.</font></table>
<p>
<p><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><b>Closed actions:</b></font>
<br>
<table border width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=7%>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>054</b></font></div>
<td width=92%><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ICU DecimalNumber/ Calendar
behaviour</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: No Progress.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: No Progress. This action is to
discover and document ICU behaviour. DFDL will do whatever ICU does.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/09: More examples of inconsistent
behaviour discovered</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">14/10: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/10: Decided to list the know issues
and combine with action 012 .Closed </font></table>
<p>
<p><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><b>Work items:</b></font>
<table border width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>No</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Item</b></font>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial"><b>target version</b></font>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>status</b></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>005</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">Improvements on property descriptions </font>
<td>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">not started</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>011</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">How speculative parsing works (combining
choice and variable-occurence - currently these are separate) </font><font size=3 color=blue>(from
action 045)</font>
<td>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">awaiting completion of actions 045</font><font size=3><b>
</b> </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>012</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">Reordering the properties discussion: move
representation earlier, improve flow of topics </font>
<td>
<td><font size=3>not started </font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>033</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Numeric data - what physical reps are
allowed for what logical types </font><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">(from
action 020)</font>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">037</font>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ensure all behaviour documented</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>036</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Update dfdl schema with change properties
</font>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ongoing</font>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>038</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Improve length section including bit
handling</font>
<td>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">some improvement in 036</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>042</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mapping of the DFDL infoset to XDM </font>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">none</font>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">not required for V1 specification</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>051</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Revised scoping rules </font><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">(from
action 051)</font>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">037</font>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">awaiting completion of action 051</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>058</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Default San Serif">textPadCharacter %#rxx limitation
and split to textxxxxPadCharacter</font>
<td><font size=2 face="Default San Serif">037</font>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>059</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Default San Serif">limit terminatorCanBeMissing
to last element in schema. Ignore elsewhere.</font>
<td><font size=2 face="Default San Serif">037</font>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>060</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Default San Serif">New empty string semantic for
dfdl:binaryBooleanTrueRep</font>
<td><font size=2 face="Default San Serif">037</font>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>061</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Default San Serif">Change maxOccurs violations from
processing error to validation error (if not 'fixed')</font>
<td><font size=2 face="Default San Serif">037</font>
<td></table>
<p>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 color=#808080 face="Symbol">ã</font><font size=1 color=#808080 face="sans-serif">
Copyright IBM Corp. 1998, 2007 All Rights Reserved</font></div></table>
<div align=right>
<br></div>
<p>
<div align=right>
<br></div>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Alan Powell<br>
<br>
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley, Winchester, SO21 2JN, England<br>
Notes Id: Alan Powell/UK/IBM email: alan_powell@uk.ibm.com
<br>
Tel: +44 (0)1962 815073
Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898<br>
<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<hr><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<i><br>
</i></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><i>Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. <br>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU</i></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>