Subject: Re: CAP Draft 6 comments

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:10:17 -0500

>> What if I *wanted* it to become less restrictive? By analogy to
>
>then you should move it to a parent that is less restrictive and adjust 
the
>vcars accordingly.  We're err'ing on the side of caution.

Yeah, OK.

/===============================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer             |
[email-masked]  |Incentive Systems, Inc.        |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.        |
|===============================================================|
|Both candidates are better than a megalomaniac mutant lab mouse|
|bent on world domination...but it's pretty close.              |
\===============================================================/

---

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:56:21 -0500

>  If it is possible for a CUA to implement a move that
>satisfies some access right requirements (what ever they 
>may be), then what are we loosing by keeping the "move"
>command?

The point is that the risk we're worrying about with CS is that we have to 
standardize what the user wants to happen to the ACLs.  If the CUA does 
it, then the CUA can change the ACLs to whatever makes sense in its UI.

/============================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer          |
[email-masked]  |Incentive Systems, Inc.     |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.     |
|============================================================|
|If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door.|
\============================================================/