Re: 1.538 + EBV/valueTesting note

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:52:40AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > The previous rules
> >were basically, TRUE for all but a few known types with known FALSE
> >values. The new rules have type errors for all but known types. I'm
> >happy to switch to the new rules, but the WG voted on the old ones.
> >DanC, advice?
> >
> Please just add some (more) "red text" about this ... anything that you 
> and Andy
> are both comfortable publishing...  and continue toward publication.

Theres also the issue of "unbound", which was mentioned briefly, its
marked as false in rq23, but that menas that !(?x) where ?x is unbound is
true, which I dont think is desirable.

- Steve

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 15:51:38 UTC