Re: Typed literals: current status

Brian McBride wrote:

> At 15:16 21/10/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Another thing, which negatively impacts DaveB, is that it then becomes
>> clearer that some of the C14N stuff about XML Literals probably ends 
>> up in
>> the syntax doc. I could try and work out what.
> 
> 
> That sounds a bit worrying.  How large a change is this?  Is it really 
> necessary?
> 
> Brian
> 

This isn't *new* text - just text we already have getting reparented - with 
all the necessary adoption papers etc.

The problem is already a point of unclarity I suspect in our current round 
of drafts.

It's to do with what triple gets emitted in Dave's doc for a 
parseType="Literal"


Jeremy