[cssm] Small question to WG

[Colin Haddow]

Hi Marcin,
                   I think basically it was one of the first things implemented when we were still getting to grips with XML and we've never revisited it. Probably makes sense to tighten up the definition when we do the 5 year review of the AED. I suspect something similiar a[plies to the CCSDS time code A defimition.

Cheers for now

Colin (currently in Madrid airport waiting for connecting flight...)

Sent from Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> on behalf of Marcin Gnat via SMWG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 12:19:34 PM
To: smwg at mailman.ccsds.org <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [cssm] Small question to WG


Dear all,



DISCLEIMER: it’s not a initiation of any changes in any standards, but rather a question to smart community ??



When working on implementation at DLR, one of my colleagues asked me, why our time code definition in schema allows any number ranges (i.e. for the DOY section everything between 000 and 999 is allowed)? Is it just to be handled by implementation (to watch out for DOY being between 001 and 365 or 366)? Any other thoughts?





            <xsd:simpleType name="CcsdsAsciiTimeCodeBType">

                        <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">

                                    <xsd:pattern value="\d{4}-\d{3}T\d{2}:\d{2}:\d{2}(.(\d)+)?Z?"/>

                        </xsd:restriction>

            </xsd:simpleType>



Cheers

Marcin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20230301/e5f2530c/attachment.htm>