Re: clarify "inline literals"

Steve,

At 08:21 30/09/2002 -0700, Stephen Petschulat wrote:
>Just the opposite, I think it is essential we continue to have non-typed
>inline literals that are "interpreted" at the application level. I.e.
>applications that currently use bare literals should continue to work as
>expected and not require re-writing.

Thanks for the clarification.  I think the requirement here is backward 
compatibility for applications.  I'll modify the wording of UD11 to reflect 
that.

Brian