- From: Gregor Karlinger <gregor.karlinger@iaik.at>
- Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:41:48 +0100
- To: "'Joseph Reagle'" <reagle@w3.org>, "'John Boyer'" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Received on Sunday, 8 December 2002 14:42:14 UTC
I basically would prefer to be as precise as the XML schema means allow. But in our context of trying to fix an erratum in an already existing spec I tend to follow the way Joseph suggests and be as simple as possible in the erratum text. Liebe Gruesse/Regards, Gregor Karlinger > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 6:06 PM > To: John Boyer; Gregor Karlinger > Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > Subject: Re: Exclusive C14N Error: Using #default in NMTOKENS > > > > 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 Sunday, 8 December 2002 14:42:14 UTC