Limitations section: where unchangeable things go
A limitations section is where a document collects the properties a caller has to work around. One entry here names its watermark under that heading, which is a statement about what cannot be changed. As of 2026-09-22.
| The term | Limitations section |
|---|---|
| What it names | The heading collecting properties a caller cannot change |
| What it is not | A feature list, or a disclaimer about quality |
| Where the register uses it | One entry's control and file-contents values |
Inclusion rule. Words this site uses in a narrow sense, where the ordinary sense would lead a reader to misread a cell. No vendor statement appears on this page. Order. Fixed order: what the word names, what it excludes, then where it is used here.
1Placement as a claim
Documents collect rate limits, supported lengths and unsupported combinations under this kind of heading. Putting a watermark there says it belongs to the same class: something a developer plans around rather than something a plan unlocks or a field toggles.
The alternative placements say other things. Among the features, a mark would be something offered. Among the parameters, something chosen. The register records the value and the readings record where in the document it was found, because that is where the meaning is.
2Why it produces an unusual row shape
The entry read this way has a filled file-contents cell, because the sentence names a scheme, and empty cells for the visible mark, the crossing point and the control. That combination appears only among entries read from technical documents, and it is the mirror image of a grid-read row.
A reader scanning for a crossing point on such a row finds nothing and should not read that as an omission. A document about limitations has no reason to discuss pricing and did not.
3What it does not mean
That the mark cannot be removed. The register's claim is narrower: no plan, parameter or setting is published that changes it. A vendor may have an internal flag and a support process, and what a reader can rely on in a contract is what is written down.
For an invisible provenance signal the narrow reading is also the sensible one. A vendor offering to suppress its own identification mechanism would be offering to make its own verification platform useless, so the absence of a switch is unsurprising rather than withheld.
Nothing on this page is a vendor statement; the values it helps read are on the support table, with the page and the date each one was read from. See also the user toggle column, source documents. Nearby terms: verification platform, public reader, internal detection.