W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Problems with Erratum E2-9 (base64Binary)

From: Priscilla Walmsley <priscilla@walmsley.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:16:37 -0400
To: "'Ashok Malhotra'" <ashokma@microsoft.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, "Henry Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <000001c31005$6d17e7f0$ef2efea9@WALMSLEYPH>

Hi Ashok,

I agree with all your comments, except that I think it should be: 

B64lastline ::= B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
	                       B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
	                       B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
	                       B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
	                       B64x4? B64x4?
	                       (B64x4 | (B64 B64 B16 '=') | (B64 B04
'=='))
	                       #xA

Thanks,
Priscilla


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Ashok Malhotra
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:36 AM
> To: Priscilla Walmsley; www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Problems with Erratum E2-9 (base64Binary)
> 
> 
> 
> Priscilla:
> I recall we introduced some bugs when we put the approved 
> text into the
> errata document and/or the 2nd Edition.  I cannot trace the 
> history but
> the errata and the 2nd edition need to be corrected as below:
> 
> > 1. The Base64Binary production refers to Base64final, which should
> > really be B64final.
> Yes, the production should read: Base64Binary ::= S? B64quartet*
> B64final?
> This needs to be fixed in the 2nd Edition as well.
> > 
> > 2. The B64line production is missing one B64x15 (There are only 61
> > rather than 76 B4's).
> Yes, production should read
>    B64line ::= B64x15 B64x15 B64x15 B64x15 B64x15 B64 #xA
> 	                   /* 76 Base64 characters followed by newline
> */
> This is correct in the 2nd Edition.
> > 
> > 3. B64x4, used in the B64lastline production, is never defined.
> Should be defined as:  B64x4   ::= B64 B64 B64 B64
> This is defined in the 2nd Edition
> > 
> > 4. The B64lastline production has an extra right parenthesis.
> This should read: 
> B64lastline ::= B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
> 	                       B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
> 	                       B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
> 	                       B64x4? B64x4? B64x4? B64x4?
> 	                       B64x4? B64x4?
> 	                       (B64x4 | (B64 B64 B16 '=') | (B64 B04
> '==')
> 	                       #xA
> This needs to be fixed in the second edition as well.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:www-xml-schema-
> > comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Priscilla Walmsley
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:08 AM
> > To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> > 
> > 
> > I was rereading erratum E2-9 and noticed a few errors in the
> > productions:
> > 
> > 1. The Base64Binary production refers to Base64final, which should
> > really be B64final.
> > 
> > 2. The B64line production is missing one B64x15 (There are only 61
> > rather than 76 B4's).
> > 
> > 3. B64x4, used in the B64lastline production, is never defined.
> > 
> > 4. The B64lastline production has an extra right parenthesis.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Priscilla
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 13:16:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:01 UTC