- 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