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?
>