Re: security. Is this implementable?

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