"I don't think we've even begun to see the awkwardness that this will create," Mr. Roberts said. "It leads you inevitably back to the very simple rule that confidentiality should be granted very sparingly, but when it's granted, you can't take it back."

Mr. Roberts said one consequence might be that "people in the know simply won't talk to us because there is a heavy element of risk." He added that one reason Mr. Woodward "has been so successful is that he's had one of the best records in the business of not breaking a confidence."

"What are we giving up if we start intruding on that?" Mr. Roberts said.

Having revealed Mr. Woodward's involvement in the case in an article and a statement from Mr. Woodward on Wednesday and two follow-up articles Thursday, Mr. Downie said he no longer believed that The Post was "in a bind or a dilemma" simply because it had not published the source's name.

"There are often things we know that our readers don't know," he said. "Sometimes it's for reasons of national security or public safety. Sometimes it's because we don't have it confirmed to our satisfaction. It takes us time to get information into publishable form."

Mr. Downie noted that another Post reporter, Walter Pincus, had testified in a deposition about another source in the leak case whom the newspaper had not identified because of a promise of confidentiality.

Mr. Downie said Mr. Woodward was continuing to press his source for permission to print the name, as well as continuing to report on the leak case. "He's always reporting," Mr. Downie said. "I don't know if it'll become a story for him or for another reporter."

In The Post's newsroom, opinions were divided about the Woodward revelation, said Jeff Leen, assistant managing editor for investigations.