3262 2006-05-09 11:26:14 +0000 base64 constraints 2008-05-16 21:22:35 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED cluster: clarification resolved P4 normal --- 1 mike cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 9676 0 mike 2006-05-09 11:26:14 +0000 QT approved comment In 3.3.17.2 the phrase "because they cannot successfully be decoded by Base64 decoders." is unnecessary and somewhat disingenuous: most Base64 decoders in the big bad world are actually far more liberal than this specification. 20030 1 cmsmcq 2008-05-05 18:43:44 +0000 I propose (this does not necessarily represent editorial consensus) that we accept this comment and delete the offending clause without replacement. If this change is accepted, the paragraph which currently reads: Note that this grammar requires the number of non-whitespace characters in the ·lexical representation· to be a multiple of four, and for equals signs to appear only at the end of the ·lexical representation·; literals which do not meet these constraints are not legal ·lexical representations· of base64Binary because they cannot successfully be decoded by Base64 decoders. will read: Note that this grammar requires the number of non-whitespace characters in the ·lexical representation· to be a multiple of four, and for equals signs to appear only at the end of the ·lexical representation·; literals which do not meet these constraints are not legal ·lexical representations· of base64Binary. 20031 2 noah_mendelsohn 2008-05-06 00:38:52 +0000 +1. The proposed change looks good to me. Noah 20063 3 davep 2008-05-09 12:21:14 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > +1. The proposed change looks good to me. Ditto. "Equals sign" (vs "equal sign") jars me, but I see that that's what Unicode documentation calls it. 20148 4 cmsmcq 2008-05-16 17:18:58 +0000 On today's WG call, the XML Schema Working Group agreed to the proposal in comment #1; I am marking this issue resolved to reflect that. Michael Kay, as the originator of the issue, would you report back to QT on this resolution and let us know whether they accept this resolution of the issue? If they agree, please so indicate by changing the record's status to CLOSED; if they disagree, REOPEN it. If we don't hear from you in a reasonable amound of time (say, two weeks), we will assume that silence implies consent.