Re: [xacml] <AnyElements>

[Bill Parducci <bill.parducci@overxeer.com>]

Daniel Engovatov wrote:
 > To clarify:
 > <Target><Subjects></Subjects></Target> != <Target></Target>
 > right?

Polar Humenn wrote:
> Alternatively, this structure says, from the current set, T, take all such
> t from T such that any subject s in t statifies any of the following
> predicates. Since there are no predicates, then no elements of T can be
> selected based on s in t, and therefore the result is the empty set. This
> would mean we have a "No-Match" situation.

harking back to my orignal point re: our [in]ability to determine a 
realistic level of verbosity for human consumption, this discussion 
sounds a lot like something the Duchess once said:

"Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to 
others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what 
you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."

> One may say that a "person" may not write such a statement, but a machine
> may indeed. In any case, the edge cases must be logically consistent.

...and do you consider this behavior consistent? being optional is one 
thing, but borderline nonsensical is another. to me this appears to be a 
case for the latter.

-Alice