W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2004

RE: Evaluation of XML Schema Part 2 PER base64Binary type

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 04:21:19 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B6338019CC76A@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: "XMLP Dist App" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Yup, because at the schema level it's actually "abcd"

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: 29 March 2004 13:16
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: XMLP Dist App
> Subject: Re: Evaluation of XML Schema Part 2 PER base64Binary type
> 
> 
> Gudge, does the whitespace stripping rule mean that "  abcd" 
> is also in
> canonical form?
> 
> Jacek
> 
> On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 12:24, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > Dear XMLPers,
> > 
> > I took an action on last weeks call to take a look at the proposed
> > edited recommendation of XML Schema Part 2[1] WRT the base64Binary
> > type[2]. 
> > 
> > The description of the base64Binary type now contains a BNF and a
> > canonical lexical form. The canonical lexical form contains no
> > whitespace characters within the stream of base64 
> characters. Whitespace
> > characters at the beginning and/or end of the stream of base64
> > characters are stripped due to the whitespace facet of the 
> type having a
> > value of collapse. Thus any canonical lexical form of 
> base64Binary is
> > one line of base64 characters.
> > 
> > I believe that the addition of a canonical lexical form 
> satisfies our
> > requirements WRT XOP/MTOM.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Gudge
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#base64Binary
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 07:21:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:16 GMT