Packed CBOR: Table set up by reference

Setting up the tables by reference CBOR tag TBD114 is defined with semantics similar to tags TBD113 and TBD1113 from in that it sets up tables around a rump. ([count, source, rump]) rump = any source = CRI / ~uri count = (count-shared-and-argument // ; similar to tag 113 count-shared, count-argument ) ; similar to tag 1113 count-shared-and-argument = uint count-shared = uint count-argument = uint tbd114 = 114 ; preliminary value, see IANA considerations ]]> The items inserted by the tables are not given explicitly, but picked out of tables known by their identifier given as source. Such a source needs to represent two lists of CBOR items, one for each kind of tables (one for shared item, one for arguments). The tag prepends some number of items out of those source lists to the tables that are used to decompress the rump. The identifier is given as a URI string (as defined in or equivalently as a CRI (as defined in . Later iterations of this document may introduce additional options.If the stand-in concept of is generalized, the source item may become the raw list of tables, possibly disallowing the CRI and URI variants. Given that tags 113 and 1113 are capable of expressing cases where the source tables are present, tag TBD114 should then be used by using a dereferencing stand-in in the source position. When the source identifier is dereferencable, all considerations from apply. (Simplifying: No dereferencing at runtime -- the recipient either knows it already or treats it as unknown). If the same number of items is prepended to both tables, their count is given as a single number; otherwise, the numbers are given separately. Encoders SHOULD use the most compact form of count, and SHOULD pick the lowest count(s) sufficient to encode the items contained in the rump. When those conflict, they may priorize either. If the source supports evolution of sources (see ), disregarding that recommendation may pose an interoperability hazard.

Count vs. content of source The count encoded for the number of table entries given in a document will often mismatch with the number of entries the receiver of a document knows to be present in the given source.

Not all known entries are used If the encoded count is less than the number of known entries, this merely expresses that the originator of the document did not use the higher numbers. When a document's tables are populated from multiple sources, encoding the smallest possible count is useful because the table indices used throughout the document stay small and can thus be encoded concisely.

Unknown entries are used - evolutution of sources If the encoded count is larger than the number of known entries, this indicates that the document may contain references that the receiver does not know. This can happen when a source has been evolved compatibly to contain more entries, compared to when the receiver learned of the source definition. Source entries beyond the receiver's knowledge stay unpopulated in the receiver's tables, but still shift existing entries to higher indices. Some CBOR protocols with elements that support isolation of processing errors. For example, a CRI that uses unknown extensions is regarded as "unprocessable" (). It cannot be resolved, is unequal to any other CRI (unless they are identical), but does not inhibit the processing of its surrounding document. In such protocols, references to unpopulated table entries can be tolerated as described in . Care has to be taken around processing tag TBD1112: If that tag is produced in the course of unpacking, comparisons for identity are not reliable. Similarly, if the unpacking mechanism provides access to the serialized form of the unprocessable entity, identity comparisons are only reliable if the items being compared have the same table setup applied. Protocols may also pre-populated entries with values that are reserved in the protocol and specified to be ignored at reception. Later, when the entries are specified, concrete values take their places. This has roughly the same effect, but is harder to describe. (This paragraph may be removed later unless it is found to be particularly useful). If a protocol has isolated error processing only around some elements, encoders need to take care to not use entries in unisolated positions that may be unpopulated at the decoder. The protocol and source authors need to provide appropriate guidance. Protocols that do not support error isolation need a way to negotiate the understood set of sources and table entries. If an implementation does not support any elements with isolated error processing at all, a receiver of a document may already stop processing the document when encountering a setup by reference that includes undefined elements.

Evolution beyond adding items The content of tables may be altered in more ways than just adding entries that were previously unpopulated. Such changes are NOT RECOMMENDED, because while they can be done in a compatible way, providing criteria for it are out of scope of this document. If a later version of this document uses stand-in values more actively, this section will need to be revisited: In that case, the tables may be part of the outer source, and then those would grow internally.

Setup with skipped indices If a large number of items at the beginning of the source tables would not be used, there is an additional four-argument form of count that defines a number of items in the source tables that are skipped before selecting items into the table. This allows keeping the indices low and therefore compact. Source tables should be designed in such a way that commonly used items are at the start to avoid the necessity of the four-argument form.

Example Suppose the URI "tag:example.com,2023:byref" defines the items ["price", "category", "author", "title", "fiction", 8.95, "isbn"] in both tables. Then the example in figure 3 of can be written as: Assuming that the underlying CBOR protocol defines that unknown keys on goods may be ignored, an older receiver that only knows the first 5 entries of the source tables could still process the document, but would be missing all ISBNs and the price of one item.