- From: Lisa Lippert (Dusseault) (Exchange) <lisal@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Date: 1998年11月17日 08:40:49 -0800
- To: "'Joe Orton'" <jeo101@york.ac.uk>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <BFF90FB6CF66D111BF4F0000F840DB8506062169@LASSIE>
This seems to be fairly useful -- of course, the ACL protocol does allow for extension of the access control rights by adding XML namespacse, if the WG as a whole doesn't want to do "execute" rights. Any other input on this one? Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Joe Orton [mailto:jeo101@york.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 6:56 AM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Execute rights Would it be a good idea to add 'execute' rights to the ACL protocol, to indicate whether a principal is allowed to execute a resource (e.g. CGI scripts). Or should this be implemented as live properties? Seems more appropriate in the ACL protocol to me. Regards, joe -- Joe Orton jeo101@york.ac.uk ... joe@orton.demon.co.uk http://www.orton.demon.co.uk/
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 11:42:08 UTC