RE: Evaluation of XML Schema Part 2 PER base64Binary type

So can we guarantee to transfer the infoset with fidelity? Or do we have
to restrict the canonical form to that with no leading and trailing
whitespace in XOP?

Jacek

On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 14:21, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> Yup, because at the schema level it's actually "abcd"
> 
> Gudge 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] 
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> > Sent: 29 March 2004 13:16
> > To: Martin Gudgin
> > Cc: XMLP Dist App
> > Subject: Re: Evaluation of XML Schema Part 2 PER base64Binary type
> > 
> > 
> > Gudge, does the whitespace stripping rule mean that "  abcd" 
> > is also in
> > canonical form?
> > 
> > Jacek
> > 
> > On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 12:24, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > > Dear XMLPers,
> > > 
> > > I took an action on last weeks call to take a look at the proposed
> > > edited recommendation of XML Schema Part 2[1] WRT the base64Binary
> > > type[2]. 
> > > 
> > > The description of the base64Binary type now contains a BNF and a
> > > canonical lexical form. The canonical lexical form contains no
> > > whitespace characters within the stream of base64 
> > characters. Whitespace
> > > characters at the beginning and/or end of the stream of base64
> > > characters are stripped due to the whitespace facet of the 
> > type having a
> > > value of collapse. Thus any canonical lexical form of 
> > base64Binary is
> > > one line of base64 characters.
> > > 
> > > I believe that the addition of a canonical lexical form 
> > satisfies our
> > > requirements WRT XOP/MTOM.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Gudge
> > > 
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/
> > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#base64Binary
> > > 
> > 
> >