Short answer: TRUE.
Mathematical answer:
As one of my university math professors used to say, "Anything is true for every member of the empty set". What the <conditions> element does logically is specify a set of propositions for which the conjunction (AND) must be true in order to grant permission. So
<conditions><P1/><P2/> ... </conditions>
is the same as the formal proposition
P1 && P2 && ...
Then you can note that TRUE && X == X for any X, in which case the above becomes:
TRUE && P1 && P2 && ...
So when you take all the individual propositions out of the <conditions> element, you're left with:
TRUE
Linguistic answer:
The <conditions> element specifies "conditions" on the grant of permission described in the <actions> <transformations> elements, in the sense that it limits the scope of that permission. So a permission with an empty <conditions> element grants "unconditional" access.
Practical answer:
A rule with a <conditions> element that always evaluates to FALSE would be useless. You might as well delete it. (If you want a way to temporarily invalidate a rule, you could, for instance, insert a validity time in the past.)
--Richard
On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:29 AM, jari urpalainen wrote:
> Hi !
>
> A clarification question: an empty conditions element without any child
> elements evaluates to FALSE or TRUE ?
>
> Section 10.1 says: "A rule matches if all conditions contained as child
> elements in the <conditions> element of a rule evaluate to TRUE", which
> imo implies FALSE for the "empty" case. The schema allows "empty"
> <conditions/>, and e.g. not understood conditions evaluate to FALSE. My
> personal programmatic interpretation goes for FALSE, but what's the
> correct one ?
>
> br, Jari
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
