- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:17:18 +0100
- To: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "'XMLSec WG Public List'" <public-xmlsec@w3.org>, "'Carine Bournez'" <carine@w3.org>
Right, and we do that in the *format* part of the spec, not in the processing model. I suggest that we revisit this point when I put concrete text on the table. -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> On 14 Dec 2009, at 21:06, Scott Cantor wrote: > Thomas Roessler wrote on 2009-12-14: >> I'd basically aim to make clear that the base64 encoding is mandated >> normatively elsewhere (i.e., in the schema). That can be done by turning > it >> into a parenthesis; I do take your point that it needs to be mentioned > here. > > There are a number of base64Binary types in the schemas, but I'm not aware > of any other cases in which the phrasing has been to imply that the schema > is what dictates the encoding. E.g. the various KeyInfo types. > > I would say rather that the encoding is mandated by the spec, and the schema > where possible reflects that. > > -- Scott > > >
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 20:17:20 UTC