Yes if it is important enough. But... in our defense, this is the first we've heard of it since 2013, which is why it isn't fixed already.
The primary use case for this that I know of is when there are more versions of DFDL around and people want to start using namespaces with different prefixes like dfdl1 and dfdl2. Until then why not just use the "by convention" choice of prefix: dfdl ? I would point out that at least one of the IBM DFDL implementations also has this problem with certain namespace prefixes including xsd and dfdl, being hard coded. So it's not like you can use dafdfdl for daffodil and ibmdfdl for IBM's variant. I'm happy to increase the priority of this ticket. I just need a rationale. ________________________________ From: Costello, Roger L. <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:51 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Daffodil hardcoded the namespace prefix? Hi Mike, Would it be possible to get this fixed by the next release of Daffodil? /Roger From: Beckerle, Mike <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [EXT] Re: Daffodil hardcoded the namespace prefix? Alas, it's a longstanding bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-587 open since 2013, egad. ...mikeb ________________________________ From: Beckerle, Mike <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:25 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Daffodil hardcoded the namespace prefix? It's a bug if it does that. It's not supposed to be hard-coded, and isn't most places. We do have some tests that don't use "dfdl" as the prefix, but obviously there is at least one rigidity where something isn't respecting namespace. ________________________________ From: Costello, Roger L. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:11 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Daffodil hardcoded the namespace prefix? Hi Folks, Instead of using "dfdl" as the namespace prefix, I used "x" xmlns:x="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"; And I changed all namespace qualifiers from "dfdl:" to "x:" Per the XML namespace specification this is perfectly legal. However, when I ran my DFDL schema I got this error: [error] Schema Definition Error: Invalid dfdl annotation found: x:format Huh? Did Daffodil hardcode the namespace prefix? That is, if any namespace prefix other than "dfdl" is used in a DFDL schema, Daffodil fails? /Roger
