I will bump the priority on this ticket. It's actually a good beginner bug, and we need to identify those for ramping up new developers.
Basically the justification is about why DFDL is built on XML Schema in the first place, which is to inherit the already-worked-out solutions to name conflict problems, modularity, etc. You want to write an article, and make the point about the value of this, so... it has to work or your point falls flat. I get it. We are actively in the release cycle for 2.6.0 like votes are already underway, so this fix will not make that release. Next thing currently on "roadmap" is 3.0.0 which is the next planned release after 2.6.0. But of course this is open source, so "roadmap" is to be taken with a grain of salt. Somebody can fix this bug at any time. Cutting an official point-release to get this out to you is not impossible either. That takes a bit more collective agreement across the developers, but isn't unreasonable to do. ...mikeb ________________________________ From: Costello, Roger L. <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:26 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Daffodil hardcoded the namespace prefix? Hi Mike, I am writing an article on DFDL. In my article I write that XML Schema is an extensible language. XML Schema provides a scaffolding upon which new languages can be created. Early in my article I talk generally about the properties used to specify data formats, such as representation, encoding, separator, and so forth. I do not talk about dfdl:representation or dfdl:encoding or dfdl:separator. After that, I then go on to say, “To distinguish extensions from the XML Schema items, I will add the prefix “x:” (“x” for eXtension).” In my article I do not use or mention dfdl as a namespace prefix. You might not think that is a good use case. But I think it is. Analogously, when people write XSLT programs, some insist on using xslt as the namespace prefix while others insist on using xsl. When writing an XSLT program that generates another XSLT program some people use axslt as the prefix. The XSLT processor doesn’t care what prefix is used. /Roger From: Beckerle, Mike <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [EXT] Re: Daffodil hardcoded the namespace prefix? 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:51 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:31 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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
