Re: So now we have tidy literals...

At 16:49 11/10/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:

>Now that we have tidy literals, do we actually agree what (tidy) kind of 
>thing they actually denote, so we can say something sensible in the 
>concepts document?
>
>I.e., in:
>
>   Jenny age "10" .
>
>is there anything to say about what the "10" actually denotes?
>
> From past discussion, I'm expecting that the answer will be that a 
> literal denotes a composite value consisting of a Uniocode string, a 
> language code and an XML flag, or something of that kind.  That would 
> tally with the current abstract syntax description [1].

Right, though DanC has been suggesting we consider that we two types of 
literals, each a pair of the literal and the string, one is a bare literal 
and the other is an xml literal.

Brian