> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 04:39:29PM +0200, Erik Rissanen wrote:
>> Regarding #2, we could do that, but in my opinion it is not needed.
>> The spec
>> is quite clear on what the condition element does already. There
>> are so many
>> ways to write a nonsensical XACML policy, that I don't think we
>> should
>> attempt to cover them. ;-)
>
On May 19, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Seth Proctor wrote:
> I agree completely. As long as it's clear that a Condition can't be
> evaluated unless it contains an expression that evaluates to a
> Boolean,
> I think we're all set. Erik, your two proposals make sense to me..
While I agree in principle, the condition that it be "clear" was not
met in this case IMO. This is why I suggested that we consider
annotation. If that is not the best approach then perhaps we can
consider another means by which to achieve this.
b
