elf-pavlik
commented
3 years ago https://gitter.im/solid/authorization-panel?at=60648961f8add214d80920ff
Sarven Capadisli @csarven Mar 31 08:38 ACP: Access "Control" Policy I don't know. not so wacy "control" is a fairly common term out there. again, not so wacy elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik Mar 31 08:39 right point taken
I understand that we should consider this PR as done tongue in cheek. I still wonder what we need to clarify before closing it.
UCR document initially was written as WAC UCR, later chanted to AuthZ UCR. WAC has very specific definition of acl:Append and acl:Control modes. While I agree that we can consider control as a common and neutral term, at the same time I think that we can't avoid that people familiar with WAC potentially see it through WAC goggles.
Possibly we should make another iteration on https://solid.github.io/authorization-panel/authorization-ucr/#definitions and after that make sure we use them in consistent manner.
justinwb
ericprud
WAC is out of control and spreading into all authorization matters eg:
eg. https://gitter.im/solid/authorization-panel?at=6064881756debe325c5323ac ( an archival snapshot for future generations: https://web.archive.org/web/20210401065723/https://gitter.im/solid/authorization-panel?at=6064881756debe325c5323ac )
Hence, this PR is an attempt to universally disassociate authorization-panel's work from WAC overarching control by using the term "change" in place of "control".
TODOs:
Friends, there is no "control" in a decentralised system. Down with authority! Who is with me?
All access models are equal, but some access models are more equal than others.
Four access modes good, two access modes bad.