[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2096?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16860261#comment-16860261
]
Michael Beckerle commented on DAFFODIL-2096:
--------------------------------------------
I think we can define settings for "all extensions", and document what "all"
means. I think we need "all-extensions" and "no-extensions" shortcuts. beyond
that is overkill.
> Add dfdlx extensions namespace prefix. Convert existing extensions to this
> namespace.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DAFFODIL-2096
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-2096
> Project: Daffodil
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Front End
> Affects Versions: 2.3.0
> Reporter: Michael Beckerle
> Assignee: Steve Lawrence
> Priority: Major
>
> Turns out Daffodil is not the only DFDL project creating extensions to DFDL.
> In order that schemas that are portable/non-portable can be distinguished,
> the DFDL workgroup has decided to bless a specific extension namespace, which
> is the current dfdl namespace plus the word "extensions".
> All the properties that we've added to dfdl that are beyond the DFDL v1.0
> spec should appear in this new dfdlx namespace instead.
> When they appear inside a dfdl:format or other long-form annotation, they
> would need the dfdlx namespace prefix, unlike standard dfdl properties which
> omit this prefix when used in long-format.
> When referenced from <dfdl:property name="dfdlx:newProp">.... they would use
> a QName, not just the bare name as DFDL v1.0 properties do.
> This same new prefix should be used for extension functions we add to DPath.
> Since this change would break existing Daffodil schemas, it is sensible for
> both the current and new namespace both work for a while (co-exist) based on
> a tunable flag, and we issue a (suppressable) warning about the older style.
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
