Folks,
Sorry, had weekend away from the keyboard.
On 22/05/10 12:46 AM, "Pradosh Mohapatra" wrote:
> Hi Terry, Robert,
>>
>> I agree with Terry on this one. I'd personally be much happier with
>> verified/unverified instead of valid/invalid. These terms are much closer to
>> what we really m
On 22/05/10 10:30 PM, "Robert Loomans" wrote:
>
> [ If you were to base a comparison function for sorting on this DB lookup, I
> believe it would have to look like this:
>
> valid = 1
> unknown = 0
> invalid = -1
> ]
>
Does
[
Verified = 1
Unknown/unverified = 0
"Refuted" definitely has the right connotations.
I'm not fond of "unverified"... if "unknown" is not acceptable,
perhaps "undetermined" is a good term.
I still have reservations about using different terms than other
drafts. I would prefer to see one set of terminology for results from
th
>>>
>>> I disagree with this terminology change - there are three states that are
>>> potential outcomes of the process, not two and the proposed terminology
>>> does not accommodate this. I request that no change be made in
>>> terminology.
>>
>> Geoff, you misunderstood. We proposed varified/un
