RE: Evaluation of XML Schema Part 2 PER base64Binary type

Cool, that's what I thought would be the outcome. 8-) I also prefer the
first here. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/




On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 19:58, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> Either of these formulation is fine with me. I guess I have a slight
> preference for the first.
> 
> Gudge 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> > Sent: 29 March 2004 18:33
> > To: Martin Gudgin
> > Cc: Jacek Kopecky; XMLP Dist App
> > Subject: RE: Evaluation of XML Schema Part 2 PER base64Binary type
> > 
> > Marting Gudgin writes:
> > 
> > >>Fine, let's just say that the base64 string MUST 
> > >> NOT contain any whitespace chars, preceding, 
> > >> inline or following. At which point, I'm
> > >> not sure why we even care what the Schema datatypes 
> > >> PER says.
> > 
> > OK, no problem at all.  This is at worst redundant with 
> > saying that it 
> > must be a canonical form.  I can easily live with either of 
> > the following 
> > (neither of which is wordsmithed.)  The first is intended to 
> > be exactly 
> > what you've proposed, the second a slight variation.
> > 
> > * To be optimized, the characters comprising the [children] 
> > MUST be in the 
> > canonical form of xsd:base64Binary and MUST not contain any 
> > whitespace 
> > chars, preceding, inline with or following the non-whitespace content.
> > 
> > -or-
> > 
> > * To be optimized, the characters comprising the [children] 
> > MUST be in the 
> > canonical form of xsd:base64Binary.  Note: this implies that 
> > there must 
> > not be any whitespace chars, preceding, inline with or following the 
> > non-whitespace content.
> > 
> > The former has the advantage of closing off any possible risk that we 
> > haven't been clear in our spec, but with the modest risk of 
> > (correctly) 
> > restating the normative rules of schema datatypes.  The 
> > latter runs the 
> > risk that I have misinterpreted datatypes, and that we are therefore 
> > leaving open some unintentional wiggle room.  As I say, I can quite 
> > happily live with either, maybe slight preference for the latter. 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > Noah Mendelsohn 
> > IBM Corporation
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > 1-617-693-4036
> > --------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 03:17:28 UTC