RE: [cam] Masks

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Martin,

Your assumption under #1 and #2 seem reasonable for now.

I've just been working this week with the USPS and UPU on
address handling - specifically Venezula addresses and US and
UK.

These issue you raise here also impacted that work.

We'll need to get this all sorted out in the next few weeks.

Once I've had a chance to work the actual data involved - I'll
be in a better position to provide actual examples.

We solve the output mask issue - by moving these to the
ExternalMapping section - since I've also discovered we
need to enhance this to handle multiple postal formats.

Not intending anything there for now however - need to
research and then propose something for after 0.14 revisions.

Thanks, DW.
=============================================
Message text written by INTERNET:martin.me.roberts@bt.com
>
        1) the setMask action should declare the style of mask being
used, either 'String', 'Number' or 'Date'.  This means we could either
have setMask(//path,String,mask) or setStringMask(//path,mask).  I
prefer the latter.

        2) In the tables shown there is emphasis on the masks that take
the string in a field as input and change it.  I believe this use case
is different from a mask that is being used to validate input.  This
means that if we want to allow masks for output that we we now have a
use case for cam as a transform tool.  I do not think we should be going
there in release 1.  This means that for release one masks are only for
validation.  If this is the case the mask definitions need changing to
reflect this.
<