W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2005

comment: QName production in SPARQL grammar; reconsider punctuationSyntax?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:02:06 -0600
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1134604926.21371.118.camel@dirk>

JJC asks that we re-consider our position on punctuationSyntax;
(a) he asks that foo:123 be allowed
(b) he suggests editorial changes that disconnect
the N3/turtle/SPARQL foo:bar notation from XML QNames

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Dec/0018.html

It's not obvious to me that there's sufficient new information
to reconsider the decision. I'm inclined to let him know that
we have previously considered this issue and show him our
decision records, but anyone who is persuaded by JJC's arguments
that we should take another look will please say so.

These tests make it pretty clear to me that we considered all sorts
of details about qname syntax...

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-07-rq
syntax-qname-07.rq
        Approved
syntax-qname-08.rq
        Approved
syntax-qname-09.rq
        Approved
syntax-qname-10.rq
        Approved
syntax-qname-11.rq
        Approved
syntax-qname-12.rq
        Approved
syntax-qname-13.rq
        Approved
syntax-qname-14.rq
        Approved
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-14-rq


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 00:02:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT