W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > December 2008

Re: security. Is this implementable?

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:40:03 +0000
Message-ID: <711a73df0812150940y48fcd2afhdb932e7ddc0e9c3c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "XProc Dev" <xproc-dev@w3.org>

2008/12/15 David A. Lee <dlee@calldei.com>:
> My read on this is that its slightly better then saying nothing.
>
> This gives implementations a specific code to use if it cant do something
> for "security" reasons.
> Saying much more would vastly complicate the spec

+1
Perhaps saying just what you've said would be better,

i.e.  " it is implementation dependent, and if
an implementation can't execute a step for security
reasons, use this error code"

I.e. just enough. I think the CR at the moment
says too much!

regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Monday, 15 December 2008 17:40:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 15 December 2008 17:40:46 GMT