RE: [xcbf] Ballot

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip H. Griffin [mailto:] 
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 20:00
> To: Alessandro Triglia
> Cc: [OASIS XCBF]
> Subject: Re: [xcbf] Ballot
> 
> 
> Alessandro,
> 
> I agree that we can not make major changes to the ASN.1 
> modules at this point in the process, without suffering 
> significant delay. But my description of an approach was more 
> theoretical and less practical than Ed's. His was to simply 
> transfer Base64 in the octet string.


I have a very strong preference for your approach.  Far from being
theoretical, it is definitely the right way to go.  Let's move on,
please.

Alessandro



> 
> Ed's approach allows us to implement XCBF now (in his tools 
> and yours using a directive) with no changes to our 
> applications later if we add the encoding control notation to 
> the module. This gives us a seamless way forward with no 
> impact on products.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> Alessandro Triglia wrote:
> 
> >Phil,
> >
> >Your comment below indicates a simple solution to some of the issues 
> >that I and others have raised.
> >
> >---------------
> >[...] This data, then represented as hexadecimal
> >characters, can be subsequently transformed by a receiving 
> >application into Base64 characters. [...] On encoding these binary
> >objects, they can be encoded directly into the hexadecimal
> >representation required by the OCTET STRING type specified 
> in the XCBF
> >ASN.1 Schema, then converted after schema validation into 
> Base64 by the
> >recipient.
> >---------------
> >
> >So we agree that base-64 is NOT used in the actual XML 
> messages being 
> >exchanged.  So we do NOT change the ASN.1 modules.
> >
> >How shall we proceed in relation to the other comments?
> >
> >Alessandro
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>