- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:06:00 -0500
- To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "Gregor Karlinger" <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Friday 06 December 2002 11:32 am, John Boyer wrote: > Yes, I agree too. The DTD says CDATA, but should the schema be > xsd:string, or should it be the longer and more precise content > specifier I posted yesterday? What is the motivation for the longer/precise defintion? My preference is not to create a new data type in the errata, but just rely upon string since that what schema and xslt seem to do for their "#foo" tokens.
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 12:09:09 UTC