- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:57:50 -0400
- To: daniel@veillard.com
- Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Daniel Veillard writes: >> I will note that: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#base64Binary >> doesn't define itself a lexical representation but reference RFC 2045, >> so I think it would be simpler if no extraneous rule be applied there >> (i.e. stick to rfc2045 and not mandate some of the more restrictive rfc2049 >> set of rules.) Note that there is a schema erratum planned that defines a lexical and canonical lexical for base64Binary [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/09/xmlschema-2/datatypes-with-errata.html#base64Binary ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 12:59:23 UTC