- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:10:25 -0400
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Cc: cbf@isovia.com, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Michael Sperberg-McQueen writes: >> 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 Dangerous, I think. Doesn't 7A8B mean different things in the two encodings? The union is unlikely to do what you expect. Also: I noticed while checking this that neither form of binary has a canonical form. Doesn't hex allow a choice of upper/lowercase for the alphabetics, and what about embedded whitespace in the base 64 (the RFC seems to allow embedded white space...I presume we do too?) If I am right, I think these should be added to the list of issues for the erratum. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 19:14:04 UTC