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

Re: Objection to hexBinary and base64Binary

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
Message-ID: <OF6C6D3194.3EF8C854-ON85256A33.007EEAEE@lotus.com>
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 GMT

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