Hi Mike,
* If the sequence has separators, initiators or terminators then encoding is required. Why? Elements have text, not sequences. So why is encoding required? I can understand requiring encoding if the sequence contains mixed content, but DFDL doesn't allow mixed content. You've stated a rule, but haven't explained why the rule exists in the first place. /Roger From: Beckerle, Mike <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 9:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [EXT] Re: What is the rationale for requiring dfdl:encoding on the xs:sequence element? If the sequence has separators, initiators or terminators then encoding is required. Otherwise it should not be. There are a variety of bugs of this sort in Daffodil. They also tend to creep in unobserved. You fix an issue and reuse a piece of code. That code assumes encoding is defined. You don't need encoding, but having reused that code, now you end up requiring it also. Unless a regression test isolates this case exactly, the bug you just introduced about requiring encoding where it isn't needed goes undetected. We don't have tests to insure that the property-requirements in Section 22 of the DFDL spec are strictly followed. ________________________________ From: Costello, Roger L. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 9:33 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: What is the rationale for requiring dfdl:encoding on the xs:sequence element? Hi Folks, If I omit dfdl:encoding from the xs:sequence element, I get this error message: [error] Schema Definition Error: Property encoding is not defined. I struggle to understand the purpose of specifying an encoding on xs:sequence. Would you explain the rationale for this, please? As far as I can tell, the DFDL specification doesn't require encoding on xs:sequence. /Roger
