W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Issues found in Turtle spec

From: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:39:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFq2bizf2RCYoWQQUZsqPwizRwe_0gXE2UBVgHq-oMsB0=OaTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Cc: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org , RDF-WG WG" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>wrote:

> >> The EBNF definition of IRI_REF seems malformed,
> >
> > The IRI_REF is malformed and should match the production from SPARQL
> > which it no longer does.
> >
> >> and has no provision for \^,
> >> as discussed elsewhere in the spec. We presume that [#0000- ] is
> intended to
> >> be [#0000-#0020].
> >
> > While [#0000- ] is valid EBNF it's not exactly readable ;)
>
> Well, given the rather week spec for EBNF, it's hard to tell if it's valid.
> Perhaps you could expand on it's interpretation.
>

The productions in the table are supposed to match the EBNF spec at
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-notation -- are there parts of this which
you find ambiguous or confusing?  If so, could you please indicate which
parts?

That said, there are known formatting issues in the table found in the
Turtle document which make the grammar less readable than it should be.  For
instance, the fragment you quote, [#0000- ], should read [#x00-#x20] in
order to exactly match the EBNF referenced by the Turtle doc.  I think the
latter form pretty unambiguously matches characters with code points 0
through 32.

-Alex
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 14:39:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 30 August 2011 14:39:58 GMT