Re: Increased lookahead requirements in the Turtle draft

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 13:25 -0500, David Booth wrote:
> [This message does not require a formal WG response, as it is not
> intended as a new formal comment, but merely as an informal comment on
> David Robillard's comment.]
> 
> On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 17:43 -0500, David Robillard wrote:
> > Ideally,
> > tokens, including the delimeters (i.e. '.' and ';'), would be whitespace
> > delimited, so reading a PrefixedName would simply stop when whitespace
> > is encountered and this problem would not exist.  Perhaps not realistic
> > given existing practice, but it would certainly be nice.
> 
> FWIW, I wish whitespace were required before a terminating '.' or ';'. 
> Given that a period can be part of a local name or a numeric constant, I
> consider it confusing and bad form to permit a triple like this:
> 
>   @prefix : <> .
>   :foo :bar :baz.

The decimal case is less troublesome because whenever you read e.g.
"0.", the next character MUST be another digit, so the dot is
unambiguously part of the decimal.  It would be more consistent to use
whitespace everywhere though, and I agree that using a dot like that is
bad form anyway.

Personally I think it should simply be as close to "any valid IRI
character until whitespace" as possible.  It's an IRI prefixing
mechanism and should be defined as such.

-dr