- From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:34:39 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226 ------- Additional Comments From geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com 2006-01-30 07:34 ------- > Given an unmapped URL "/x", will the condition in > If: </x> (Not <DAV:foobar>) > evaluate to true or false? Since "If: </x> <DAV:foobar>" would evaluate to "false", unless we adjust the definition of NOT, this has to evaluate to "true". > To complicate things, what's the situation for a URL that is mapped, but for > which the authenticated principal lacks access rights? As above, it would just be the opposite of what "If: </x> <DAV:foobar>" would evaluate to. But there remains the question of what "If: </x> <DAV:foobar>" would evaluate to. The guiding priciple here is probably avoiding exposing information to unauthorized users. So an inability to see the object should probably be treated the same as the object not existing, so NOT would return "true". ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 15:34:52 UTC