Capabilities by any other name

[Ka-Ping Yee]

Jonathan Shapiro wrote:
> I think I wrote confusingly.  I meant that most of the serious security
> community uses the term "capability" as it is used in this list, which has
> nothing to do with the way POSIX misuses the term.  This community is a
> critical constituent for building popular credibility, and switching terms
> would lose them.

Douglas Crockford wrote:
> 
> I hear some of those guys are pretty smart. I think they could keep up if
> your terminology is clear.
> 
> "Death Before Confusion!"

Better yet, why don't we just get all of them in on this particular
terminology discussion too, so we can just agree on a term (whether
that be "capability", some other word plus "capability", or something
different entirely) and all be in sync?

Here are some terms i would be comfortable with:

    "capabilities"
    "capability pointers"
    "capability keys"
    "object keys"
    "object capability security"
    "object-based security"



-- ?!ng

"The only `intuitive' interface is the nipple.  After that, it's all learned."
    -- Burce Ediger, on user interfaces