W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Objection to hexBinary and base64Binary

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:40:39 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010419161939.0221cea0@espanola.com>
To: "Charles Frankston" <cbf@isovia.com>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
At 2001-04-05 22:42, you wrote:

>There was a change made to the binary datatype back in January, between 
>the Candidate Recommendation and the first Proposed Recommendation:

Charles -

in preparing for the director's decision on whether XML Schema
should go forward or not, it would be helpful to know whether
you are at all persuaded by the WG's response to your note on
the binary types.

Your argument, if I understood it right, was:

   1 this exposes the lexical form of the binary blob to
     downstream processors, which is bad
   2 this forces schema authors to choose a particular notation
     instead of just saying 'binary'
   3 this requires all processors to support both encodings

The WG position (you have already seen Ashok Malhotra's
description; here's another) is

   1 it would be bad, but since hexBinary and base64Binary
     both have the set of bit strings as their value space,
     and since downstream apps should normally have access
     to the value, not just the lexical form, it should be
     possible for downstream apps to ignore the lexical form
   2 schema authors can define a 'binary' type as a union
     of the hex and base64 types, so they can in fact
     just say 'binary' if they wish
   3 true, but neither encoding is really hard to support

Does this persuade you at all?  Let us know.  Thanks.

Michael
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 18:49:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:50 GMT