Re: [xcbf] Discussion document on XCBF spec

["Ed Day" <eday@obj-sys.com>]

I think given this late date that changes should be kept to a minimum.  What
is there has already been approved for the most part.  Only a few tweaks
describing how the Base64 encoding is to be accomplished should be
necessary.  I think any big changes need to be deferred to the next version.

Regards,

Ed Day


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Larmouth" <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
To: <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>
Cc: "xcbf" <xcbf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Discussion document on XCBF spec


> To reply to my own message:
>
> John Larmouth wrote:
>
> > I understand that you should be getting notification of that upload
> > automatically, but it has not come back to *me* yet.
>
> It still has not come (but I understand that others have got it).  Maybe
> the person posting the document does not get the noticiation?  But this
> is not the first time that OASIS mailings have taken a couple of days to
> reach me when others have got them (don't know why - guess the server is
> anti-English!).
>
> > (There is no formal mechanism - even with Amendment 1 in place - to
> > formally forbid a HEX encoding.  You can allow a BASE64 encoding as an
> > encoder's option, but you cannot express formally that you require
> > (only) that to be used instead of HEX.
>
> I got this wrong - getting too old!  The BASE64 encoding instruction
> *does* prohibit use of HEX (otherwise we would have ambiguous
> encodings), but it does NOT mandate BASE64 - use of XML mark-up for the
> contents is still allowed as an encoders option.
>
> Sorry for the wrong information.
>
> (I don't think this affects the main discussion on what we want for XCBF.)
>
> John L
>