- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 18:39:39 +0200
- To: "'public-p3p-spec'" <public-p3p-spec@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <200507061839.40522.rigo@w3.org>
Awaiting a better config of the mailing list, I forward those messages from Lorrie ---------- [fwd] ---------- Subject: [Moderator Action] Re: Trouble with data schema Date: Wednesday 06 July 2005 16:32 From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@cs.cmu.edu> To: Giles Hogben <giles.hogben@jrc.it> Cc: 'Rigo Wenning' <rigo@w3.org>, public-p3p-spec@w3.org I don't fully follow what you are proposing... but I am strongly opposed to any changes that open up nasty new cans of worms at this point in time. Lorrie On Jul 6, 2005, at 6:03 AM, Giles Hogben wrote: > Hmmmm - I didn't mean that you can't keep using the old categories. I > just > mean to simplify the syntax, let's forbid them in future. The point > is that > in any new schema, broad categories could simply be expressed as e.g. > : > > <navigation><cookie/></navigation> > > OR > > <demographic><vehicle><color/></vehicle></demographic> > > One possibility would be to offer them as elements in the new XSD BDS > so > that the weird syntax string based ones disappear completely in new > schemas > and you just use the element to hook new data elements onto. > > We could even turn the XSD schema up on its head and get rid of the > string > based categories so that the XSD defines the categories as elements > with the > category would then be at the top level in the data element and > details would be hooked on below. > > E.g. > > <navigation><cookie/></navigation> > > You could also write them without categories unless they were dynamic > > <user><online><uri/></online></user></navigation> > > Agents would match elements like <navigation/> to all the allowed > subelements of <navigation> > > This would mean quite a lot of rewriting the transforms etc... I > estimate 2 > weeks extra work. It may also have nasty implications for APPEL. Any > thoughts. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-p3p-spec-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Rigo Wenning > Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:28 > To: Giles Hogben > Cc: 'Lorrie Cranor'; public-p3p-spec@w3.org > Subject: Re: Trouble with data schema > > Am Wednesday 06 July 2005 09:27 verlautbarte Giles Hogben : >> I would like to propose a simplification which there is still time >> to put in the spec. We include categories in the Base Data Schema >> for backward compatibility - but we disallow them in custom schemas >> from now on. > > I don't get you here. One of the features of the category system was, > that new custom data elements could be attached to the existing broad > categories thus giving the custom elements some meaning. This meaning > would then be easier to understand for user agents. > > ***There is nothing to stop you doing that. > >> If you want to put in broad categories, there's nothing stopping you >> - you just have to make them into data elements which subsume the >> narrower categories. There's no need for a completely different and >> confusing syntax. > > Can you give an example how this would look like? > >> Yes it's because of XSD. Basically because each >> data element takes a subset of categories from a global set, this is >> only possible with a custom data type (or at least that's the only >> way we could find to do it and we consulted some XML lists)... > > Can we say that we don't allow for NEW categories? Because in your > example in the Spec, you say: > > <element minoccurs="0" maxoccurs="1" name="musical-preference"> > <element minoccurs="0" maxoccurs="1" > ref="classicalmusic-preference"/> > <annotation> > <documentation> > Musical Preferences > </documentation> > </annotation> > <element ref="CATEGORY" minoccurs="0" maxoccurs="*" > type="allCategories"/> > </element> > > So if you wanted new <category> - Elements, you would have to make > them available in a custom XML Schema? How would that fit in our > framework? > > Best, > > Rigo -------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 16:39:50 UTC