- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:52:51 -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: >> 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