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

Re: Issues found in Turtle spec

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:47:33 +0100
Cc: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <26920615-83DE-49EA-AFA8-D30DF5513AD8@cyganiak.de>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
On 29 Aug 2011, at 22:12, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> 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.

[A-Z] is everything from “A” to “Z”. [ -Z] is everything from space to “Z”. [#0000- ] is everything from code point 0 to space (code point 32). (I guess.)

> FWIW, I don't find ( ... ) very useful, but, e.g., '[ a <node> ] .' can be useful. I'd suggest adding a production to support it.

+0.5. I've often been annoyed by having to use one syntax for “top-level” blank nodes and another for “nested” blank nodes. OTOH, Turtle should change as little as possible and align with SPARQL.

Best,
Richard
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 06:48:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT