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: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:21:46 +0200
To: "'Rigo Wenning'" <rigo@w3.org>
Cc: "'Lorrie Cranor'" <lorrie+@cs.cmu.edu>, "'public-p3p-spec'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
Message-id: <001b01c5838d$b3171930$a161fea9@cs.jrc.it>

It's not MS specific stuff.
I used it with Xalan and it works fine.

What does this mean as a bug: Reached template:
"@*|*|processing-instruction()|comment()" mode: ""??

-----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 23:30
To: Giles Hogben
Cc: 'Lorrie Cranor'; 'public-p3p-spec'
Subject: Re: Trouble with data schema


Giles, 

used with kxsldbg, (xsl debugger) it gives the following error:


Finished stylesheet
  

Starting stylesheet

compilation error: file 
file:///home/rigo/apps/Jigsaw/Jigsaw/WWW/P3P/2005/WD-P3P11-20050713/policyda
taelementtransform.xsl 
line 10 element stylesheet
xsl:exclude-result-prefixes : undefined namespace xs compilation error: file

file:///home/rigo/apps/Jigsaw/Jigsaw/WWW/P3P/2005/WD-P3P11-20050713/policyda
taelementtransform.xsl 
line 10 element stylesheet
xsl:exclude-result-prefixes : undefined namespace xs
Setting stylesheet base path to 
file:///home/rigo/apps/Jigsaw/Jigsaw/WWW/P3P/2005/WD-P3P11-20050713/.

Reached template: "@*|*|processing-instruction()|comment()" mode: ""

So this is still the MS specific stuff that doesn't work

Rigo


Am Thursday 07 July 2005 19:53 verlautbarte Giles Hogben :
> Rigo,
> 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.
>
> Best,
>
> Rigo
>
> 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 Friday, 8 July 2005 07:22:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 8 July 2005 07:22:34 GMT