On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 16:35 +0200, 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 to me. A particular benefit of this name is it makes very
clear the similarity of this state to the "client-excluded" state. On
the down side, it's a bit long which is a nuisance in function names,
but I think it's more important to have it understandable and we haven't
come up with a really good short name.
- Julian
