- From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:42:14 +0200
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: daniel@veillard.com, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:57:50PM -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 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
Okay, but
1/ it's still not public
2/ it's a bit late to make such changes
oh well, I would have prefered to stick to the Datatype REC for compatibility,
but if the revision of the Datatype REC ain't compatible, forget about it :-\
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ |
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 17:43:31 UTC