Skip to content

Conversation

@michielbdejong
Copy link
Contributor

ACL permission requirements are hard to follow even if you spell them out completely, and in this spec text we try to speak in generic terms about them, and only mention the aspects that are worth noting, and that makes it even harder.

I might be getting this wrong because it's all so complex, but here's what I think now after reading the recent comments:

It seems #122 created some confusion.

This updates the text to match what we decided in response to a similar but unrelated confusion.

At the time we decided not to update the spec text, but now that the spec text is more detailed, the current statement is not correctly conveying that access to both the containing folder and the non-existing resource URL is required.

This updates the text to match what we decided in solid#105 (comment). At the time we decided not to update the spec text, but now that the spec text is more detailed, the current statement is not correctly conveying that access to both the containing folder and the non-existing resource URL is required.

See the confusion that was created by this in solid-contrib/web-access-control-tests#56 which was an (I think incorrect) reaction to solid#122.
Copy link
Member

@csarven csarven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@michielbdejong , the requested clarification is good / in the right direction, thanks!

I've requested changes building on suggestions made by @michielbdejong @TallTed .

Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
@csarven csarven merged commit e15af38 into solid:main Dec 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants