W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Escape sequences (SPARQL and Turtle)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:10:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4EDBD3A3.4090105@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
I've updated comment RC-4 to reflect the proposal to add character 
escape sequences to the local part of prefix names and also the addition 
of %-encoded hex sequences as an "at risk" feature as in:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0229.html

and detailed in:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0249.html

The RDF-WG has resolved to add character escapes.  Other matters are 
still pending.

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-11-30#resolution_1

We should make a SPARQL-WG resolution for this change:

Proposed 1 (the RDF-WG wording)
"""
The set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is 
~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_ (token: PN_LOCAL); i.e., the set of URI-legal, 
non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment).
"""

Proposed 2 (%-encoded sequences)
"""
Allow character sequences of the form "% HEX HEX" in the local part of 
prefixed names.  (token: PN_LOCAL)
"""

Rationale:

URIs require non-ASCII characters to be %-encoded (RDF 3987) it can 
rather inconvenient to write the <>-form all the time, especially as 
there can be only one BASE in force at the time.


Being "at risk", means I feel we can publish.  Leaving a choice in an LC 
publication is going to mean some implementation may choose the one that 
does not happen and so not implement the standard one; LC is supposed to 
be that design decisions have been made.

	Andy

Paul - I've updated comment response RC-4 based on these proposals and 
the fact that unicode processing does not change.
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2011 20:10:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT