On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:10:32PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > >So they're not used internally, but externally. IOW, it provides > >a helper framework to facilitate implementation of restriction > >management in an upper layer. > It's nothing wrong with that, as long as you are free _not_to_ use the > framework.
In practice, it tends to generate confusion. For example, the implementor of a libpoppler-based program might naively think that access to the data is disallowed by cryptography instead of restriction management, and make her program disallow access to the document in good faith. Or one could be writing a program that lists files and their properties, and mistakenly tell the user that a PDF file cannot be printed. This happened to the KDE developers in fact: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162089 (although they didn't want to recognize it) If you don't want to remove the functions, please consider at least renaming them and clearly documenting in the code that they're purely informative. Thanks -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
