W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > June 2004

RE: AGENDA: 23 June P3P Spec call

From: Giles Hogben <giles.hogben@jrc.it>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:26:06 +0200
To: <massimo@w3.org>, "'Lorrie Cranor'" <lorrie+@cs.cmu.edu>
Cc: "'public-p3p-spec'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601c4583a$f1fccac0$362abf8b@cs.jrc.it>

I think there is a slight misunderstanding of the extent of the breaking of
backward compatibility.
It is only broken in a small way, which should not affect anyone. This also
does not break the backward compatibility guidelines as the BDS is not part
of the P3P 1.0 Schema anyway.

1. Old Base Data Schema data element syntax can still be used
2. Extended elements can still be written in the old format.

The only thing which breaks backward compatibility (with only some
implementations) is that custom elements written with the new format cannot
be validated against the old style schema. They can still be written in the
old syntax, with a new style syntax alongside in an extension element to
provide validation where possible.

>**-----Original Message-----
>**From: public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org 
>**[mailto:public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of massimo@w3.org
>**Sent: 22 June 2004 00:01
>**To: Lorrie Cranor
>**Cc: public-p3p-spec
>**Subject: Re: AGENDA: 23 June P3P Spec call
>**> 2. XML schema stuff - we need more input on whether it 
>**makes sense to 
>**> make this change in P3P1.1 despite backwards compatibility issues
>**Before I forget to send some feedback...;)
>**a) I thought the proposal, time ago, was to add this on top 
>**of, and not as a replacement, the original p3p1.0 mechanism, 
>**so not having nasty backward-compatibility issues 
>**altogether. Is this the case, or now the trend is to go with 
>**a replacement?
>**b) Second point: at p3p1.0 time, the schema solution was 
>**banned out by all our major implementors, ie Microsoft, IBM, 
>**and Ericsson. If this goes all the way thru, please be sure 
>**to get an ack (or at least a "can live with") from the big 
>**players before proceeding.
>**There were another tech points on compatibility when passing 
>**from the p3p1.0 way to a schema-way, but whether exposing 
>**them is worth really first depends on the answer to a), so 
>**I'll await for that ;)
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 05:26:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:19 UTC