Daniel Veillard writes: >> I will note that: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#base64Binary >> doesn't define itself a lexical representation but reference RFC 2045, >> so I think it would be simpler if no extraneous rule be applied there >> (i.e. stick to rfc2045 and not mandate some of the more restrictive rfc2049 >> set of rules.) Note that there is a schema erratum planned that defines a lexical and canonical lexical for base64Binary [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/09/xmlschema-2/datatypes-with-errata.html#base64Binary ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 12:59:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:41:57 GMT