W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > July 2005

RE: Trouble with data schema

From: Giles Hogben <giles.hogben@jrc.it>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:53:27 +0200
To: "'Rigo Wenning'" <rigo@w3.org>, "'Lorrie Cranor'" <lorrie+@cs.cmu.edu>
Cc: "'public-p3p-spec'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Message-id: <001801c5831c$c720ddb0$5f2abf8b@cs.jrc.it>
Policy transforms attached.
The FORWARDS are now incorporated into our policy editor (i.e. you write the
elements with 1.1 format only and you get the 1.0 backwards compatibility
stuff automatically)
Without the categories, it just makes it a lot simpler to write new schemas
- you can use XML schema but you don't have to jump through hoops for
backward compatibility. If you want to make some broader categories you just
make them like all the others.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org [mailto:public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Rigo Wenning
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 19:29
To: Lorrie Cranor
Cc: 'public-p3p-spec'; Giles Hogben
Subject: Re: Trouble with data schema

Didn't we agree, that a transform would be released as a WG Note? The 
problematic things is the backwards compatibility requirement. At the 
moment it requires the backwards transform. That's why it is referenced 
in the Specification and so desperately missing. 

Problem is: What implementations do we break if there is no transform? 
The transform makes the data format incredibly complicated / nearly 
unusable. So this is the key question. Only if we can provide a service 
for automatic transform to 1.0 dataschema, it all makes sense. This 
said, the necessary (and not the 'nice to have') transforms should be 
annexed to the Specification as long as we require both formats. 

The advantage put forward to use just plain XML Schema (tools, ease of 
use etc) slowly disappears here, if the new format is even more 
constrained as the old format and requires difficult operations before 
having a valid policy.



Am Thursday 07 July 2005 18:08 verlautbarte Lorrie Cranor :
> I think we can go to last call without the updated transforms (we 
> would need to document what's wrong with the existing transforms). We 
> would definitely need this fixed before going to PR, which we are 
> aiming for some time in September. What do others think?

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 17:54:10 UTC

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