From: Ka-Ping Yee <>
Replying To: David Wagner <>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:15:47 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: [e-lang] "Capability Myths Demolished" (was: Software security workshop)

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, David Wagner wrote:
> One could have a battle royale over who gets to choose the definition of
> the word "capability".  However, I'm not sure that this is productive.
> I suspect it's too late to change what most people think of when they
> think of the word "capabilities".
> Therefore, my conclusion is that it would be more effective to pick a new
> term for E-style capabilities, and then focus on arguing the advantages
> of E-style capabilities.

Other people have further diluted the meaning of the word "capability"
by coining "POSIX capabilities",  which of course have nothing to do with
capabilities (in either of the senses you mentioned) at all.

So finding a new name may be a good idea.  But i seem to recall we've
been down this road before.  Are there still potential candidates? 
Mark and Norm have used the terms "cap" and "key".  I don't think i've
seen anyone else talk about "caps" as a security concept, though i'm
also uncertain if abbreviation alone is sufficient to distinguish it
from all the other meanings of "capability".

-- ?!ng