Clyde, Thanks for pointing this out. I personally think that instead of making the header record mandatory which is something that most CSV applications do not have, I would rather take the comma out of the end of the record and have the last field end with a CRLF instead of an optional COMMA. Do you think that is a plausible solution? Yakov clyde.ingram@edl.uk.eds.com wrote:
In section "2.Definition of the CSV format", items 3 & 4 state:
3. There maybe an optional header line appearing as the first line of the file with the same format as normal record lines. This header will contain names corresponding to the fields in the file and will usually contain the same number of fields as the records in the rest of the file. For example:
field_name,field_name,field_name CRLF aaa,bbb,ccc CRLF zzz,yyy,xxx CRLF 4. Within the header and each record there may be one or more fields, delimited by commas. The last field in the record may or may not be followed by a comma. For example:
aaa,bbb,ccc
Why would you permit the last field in the record to be followed by a comma? If a CSV record comprises:
aaa,,ccc,ddd,,CRLF
does it have 6 fields or 5? If comma is a field separator only, there are 6 fields:
1. aaa 2. <null> 3. ccc 4. ddd 5. <null> 6. <null>
But if the comma is also a mandatory terminator for the last field (effectively the record separator becomes comma-CRLF), then there are 5 fields.
In my view, permitting the last field to end with comma leads to ambiguity, and prevents an application from checking that an exact number of fields is present. The only way to guarantee the exact number of fields is then to count the fields in the header. But then your item 3 allows the header record to be omitted.
Would it not be safer to make the header record mandatory?
Thank-you and regards, Clyde Ingram