Talk:Ambient authority
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]There are certainly drawbacks with the use of ambient authority, and NPOV is not always the most accurate (an article on bubble sort can't get by without noting the extreme drawbacks) but I still can't help but get a very strong impression that this is pushing the alternative of object-capability security through weasel-wording: "little option", "hoping for the best" and so on. The erights people may be very technically competent, but an encyclopedic article calls for something better than evangalism. Just the facts, maam. 206.173.243.159 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ambiguity
[edit]In this sentance, "a 'name' is any way of referring to an object that does not itself include authorising information, and could potentially be used by any subject" it is ambiguous whether "and could potentially be used by any subject" qualifies "a way of referring" or "authorizing information." Please consider rephrasing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrae (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)