Operations » Editor

The GFSG is willing to waive its initial review and move this document immediately to public comment if the area director agrees.

If there are no objections from the AD or the participants, we are also willing to consider shortening the public comment period - but we need to understand the reasons for doing so.

PubCom Tracker is created.

Reasons for proposing a reduced public comment period:

1) IBM's implementation of DFDL has been available in the hands of real users for nearly 2 years. Any issues with the spec that have been raised by users and WG members have been incorporated into an errata document published on Redmine, and linked to by the IBM DFDL documentation. The revised specification incorporates these errata and nothing else, so it can be argued that the changes have been publicly visible, and available for comment, for some time already.

2) The DFDL WG has received several requests from implementation teams and end users to make the revised specification public, and we want this to happen at the earliest opportunity, so that people do not have to refer to the original specification and the errata document together. Also in October IBM will ship its next release of IBM DFDL and wants to include the revised specification (web version).

3) Given where the two implementations are, with some spec features still to be implemented, it is inevitable that more errata will be found over the next year, so the WG anticipates that a further revision will be needed anyway. It is this next revision that the WG would move through to full Grid Recommendation, and would have full 60 day public comment.

Agreed between DFDL WG, Alan Sill and David Martin that public comment for this GFD-P-R would be 30 days, to match the two experience documents.

I changed the public comment forum entry to reflect the 30 day period.

Update from standards telecon July 8: The group is working on all 3 pending documents, and will met at the upcoming OGF.

To head off a potential question ...

There are two public comments not incorporated into the updated GFD.207. One is because neither implementation has looked at that area yet (bi-di text), and the other is because we are contemplating a rewrite of the affected section to improve readability. The DFDL-WG will address these in future errata - see my update above from a year ago marked 3).

Andre,

As mentioned in the tracker, this is GFD-R-P.207. And, the Web version is also ready. Thanks,
Greg