On 06/23/2011 10:35 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> 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.Sounds good. And to be clear, the reasoning behind your change is unassailable. I'm sure several of us have been confused at one time or another regarding the difference between "absent" and "not-present". :-) -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
