- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:44:55 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 22/04/15 21:32, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: >> The point of all this is that for Y that evaluates to true and Z that has >> evaluates to true, me might want `Y and Z` to evaluate to true. > > You got that last part confused. What we want is for "Y or Z" to be > true if Y or Z is true, regardless of what the other one is. In > particular, we don't want a <general-enclosed> on one side to mess > that up, because it's irrelevant. I can’t believe how wrong I typed that sentence. Yeah, that’s what was said on the call and I tried to repeat :) > Your truth table is mostly correct, but I think "maybe AND false" > should be false. In particular, we should be implementing the Kleene > 3-value logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic#Kleene_and_Priest_logics Yes, that sounds more consistent than the one I made up while typing it. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2015 21:45:25 UTC