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/policydataelementtransform.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/policydataelementtransform.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?