W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2003

Re: XInclude and MTOM

From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:42:14 +0200
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: daniel@veillard.com, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030916214214.GD24227@daniel.veillard.com>

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:57:50PM -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 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

  Okay, but
     1/ it's still not public
     2/ it's a bit late to make such changes
oh well, I would have prefered to stick to the Datatype REC for compatibility,
but if the revision of  the Datatype REC ain't compatible, forget about it :-\

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | 
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 17:43:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:15 GMT