Re: So now we have tidy literals...

At 08:30 AM 10/14/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:

>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.

Yes... I think I came closer to that in the tentative text, which you did 
not quote.  But mainly, I wanted to make sure we're all facing the same 
direction now ;-)

#g



-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>