- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:33:09 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote: > Le 26/09/2012 01:08, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : >> We'd probably also want negations of unknown functions to >> evaluate as false. Basically, only an "or" should be able to >> whitewash away the unrecognized-ness. > > Maybe, but why? In terms of boolean logic, having "A" and "not A" both > evaluate to false is very strange to me. Is there a use case I’m missing? I agree that it's strange, but you simply *don't know* whether it should be true or not. My suggested solution is kinda similar to NaN-poisoning, where once a NaN is introduced, it remains NaN until you do something special with it. This just wipes out the entire unknown clause. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 17:34:01 UTC