* Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>The textual descriptions are in some cases quite precise, but in some 
>other cases, leave quite a bit of ambiguity. And stuff like "It may have 
>an exponent of ten, prefixed by e (U+0065) or E (U+0045) and optionally 
>+ (U+002B) or – (U+002D)." (in particlar the first clause of that 
>sentence) doesn't make much sense. If e.g. 1.2 has an exponent of 10, 
>it's going to be 6.1917 or so, not at all what this notation is usually 
>used for.

Apparently in `x²` 2 is "an exponent of" x. That does not make much
sense to me either, but it does appear to be a common english idiom.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern at hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Martin J. Dürst wrote:

>The textual descriptions are in some cases quite precise, but in some 
>other cases, leave quite a bit of ambiguity. And stuff like "It may have 
>an exponent of ten, prefixed by e (U+0065) or E (U+0045) and optionally 
>\+ (U+002B) or – (U+002D)." (in particlar the first clause of that 
>sentence) doesn't make much sense. If e.g. 1.2 has an exponent of 10, 
>it's going to be 6.1917 or so, not at all what this notation is usually 
>used for.

Apparently in `x²` 2 is "an exponent of" x. That does not make much
sense to me either, but it does appear to be a common english idiom.