- From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:37:01 -0500
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org>
We use the data-group syntax anywhere that we reference data elements. We did this mostly so that we would only have to define one mechanism for these data references. Yes, that means that there are some components of the syntax that don't add any value in some contexts, but they don't hurt anything either. I won't claim this was the best design choice, but it seems to be an OK design choice. Lorrie Cranor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> To: <www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:24 PM Subject: re-use of DATA-GROUP seems odd, unspecified > From the XML Schema for P3P, > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-P3P-20010928/#Appendix_schema > This seems allowed: > > <POLICY> > <ENTITY> > <DATA-GROUP> > <DATA ref="#business.name"> > <CATEGORIES><demographic/></CATEGORIES> > </DATA> > </DATA-GROUP> > </ENTITY> > ... > </POLICY> > > What would that mean? Why allow <CATEGORIES> in > <ENTITY>? i.e. why re-use the DATA-GROUP syntax? > It doesn't seem to buy anything. > > fyi... I'm writing something that converts P3P policy > files to RDF, > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/p3p/grokPolicy.xsl > > trying to see if I can do an APPEL-work-alike > using some Semantic Web Advanced Development stuff... > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/p3p/Makefile > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/ > > see also: #rdfig discussion > http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-12-05#T17-05-19 > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2001 13:39:45 UTC