Re: XInclude and MTOM

Daniel Veillard writes:

>> 1/ it's still not public

My apologies, I had not remembered that I was including links from public 
documents to member-only.  I note that the Schema WG has publicly aired 
its intention to make these changes in 3.2.16 of [1], which I am 98% sure 
was published last April.   So, the information is out there, and has been 
for awhile. 

>>  2/ it's a bit late to make such changes

I can't speak for the Schema WG, but the only time we (intend to) make 
changes in the errata that would be viewed as incompatible is in 
situations in which the original recommendation was self-contradictory or 
sufficiently erroneous that not reasonble implementation would be provably 
correct.    You'd have ask others what the contradiction or error was in 
this case.  I think it was that the reference to 2045 left some lack of clarity as to which 
lexical forms were acceptable at all, that in clarifying these it became 
clear that 2045 allowed multiple lexical forms for a given value, and that 
we would follow our usual model of providing a preferred canonical form 
when there is a choice of lexicals for a given value. 

>> I would have prefered to stick to the Datatype REC for compatibility

I'm a bit confused.  The above refer to errata to the Recommendation.  The 
definitions of the lexical and canonical forms are likely to be in the 
Recommendation in the not too distant future (we hope.)

If you want to pursue this, I would post a note to Schema comments. 
Thanks!

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-errata

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
09/16/2003 05:42 PM
Please respond to daniel

 
        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
        Subject:        Re: XInclude and MTOM


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 Wednesday, 17 September 2003 17:53:06 UTC