On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:17:19AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/23/2011 10:09 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 09:59:48AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >> Now, I'm fine with using something other than "absent" ("omitted",
> >> "withheld", ...), but -1 on any terminology that allows the WC to presume
> >> to
> >> know what it simply cannot.
> >
> > Julian also suggested "server-excluded". Would that work?
>
> Sure! That would work quite well, actually.
OK. As stated on IRC I am going to wait a while and then change it again
from "unauthz" to "server-excluded" unless I hear objections.
