To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" <email@example.com>, "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:15:20 +0200
Subject: Re: "private" Element Attribute
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 04:26:22PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott <email@example.com> wrote a message of 14 lines which said: > As far as I can tell this doesn't get us to element-level preference > specification unless APPEL-like elements are added to _every_ object > element. That seems unworkable. Yes, it is a difficult issue. We should work at a higher level: when performing a <contact:create>, the user (probably a registrar acting on behalf of a registrant which sent to the registrar a set of preferences) adds *one* APPEL element to the EPP flow (not one to every <contact:something>). The registry then tries to map the preferences expressed in APPEL to its own data schema. More realistic, although a bit ambiguous since EPP-contact-mapping schema may not be the same as the APPEL base schema (actually, it is the P3P base schema).