Re: Evaluation of XML Schema Part 2 PER base64Binary type

Mark Nottingham <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.text.xml.distributed
Message-ID <[email protected]>
+1

On Mar 30, 2004, at 12:15 AM, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

>
> 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> 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
>>> --------------------------------------
>
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.