On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 03:19, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] > I believe that Jeremy's recent 1984 example (in > addition to other examples provided over the past > few days) clearly demonstrates that a literal > does not have consistent global meaning. No, you have not established that as fact. I accept it as your preferred design choice, and I accept that you find S unacceptable in various ways, but S is a coherent design wherein "1984" does have a consistent global meaning. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 10:45:17 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:44:03 EDT