I assumed this must have come up before, but I've searched around a lot and can't find anything about it.

If I use TAC on a "normal" taxonomy termed node, all good.
If I do the same thing, but with a content_taxonomy field, it doesn't work; ie, a user who was previously denied access to the node can now happily see it.

I'd assumed that the term on the node either way would serve the same purpose. Content_taxonomy implies this, since it makes the standard taxonomy widget disappear if you use it as a CCK field instead. Testing shows this isn't the case.

To me, it's a bug, since it seems like it should do the same thing.

If not, then I'm submitting a feature request.

  • A possible problem with implementing this could be "Why would you want access-control-related terms in with other CCK fields? Shouldn't they be away from there anyway?" My response would be: user experience. End-users who might be filling out the forms don't get all that. They tag some content as "Group A" (which happens to also dictate access) as part of the other metadata, so it's very useful to have that appear in a suitable place with the other relevant metadata on the form. If they have to use the standard taxonomies fieldset, there isn't much control over where things are. There might be several vocabs in there that would be better placed elsewhere in the form. (Presumably a reason for the content_access module in the first place.)

At this stage, can the documentation at least mention that it only works with the "standard" way of applying taxonomy terms?