Canonical N-Triples

Hi Andy and all,

Andy correctly identified a problem in the N-Triples spec.  The “canonical“ form of N-Triples is defined, but never used for anything.  David Booth suggested that implementors be "encouraged" to parse at least that form, but that is impossible to do as long as the encouragement would need to be added to the normative Conformance section.

Andy has moved the canonical N-Triples form to a separate section [1] in the latest editors draft.  I think we can and should make the case that this is a purely editorial tweak for the purpose of saying something informative about canonical N-Triples.

However, there are still at least two problems:

1.  The canonical N-Triples form is not really used anywhere.  It is mentioned briefly in the Conformance section [2].

2.  It is unclear why we are mentioning canonical N-Triples at all.

I propose that Section 4 (A Canonical form of N-Triples) be marked as informative, and implementors be encouraged to support at least the canonical form in that section.  We might want to go farther by stating that users can presume that a compliant parser will support at least the canonical form.

That approach seems to address both of the problems identified, although it does push the boundary of editorial changes.

Does anyone disagree?  Do the staff members have comments or suggestions?

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html#canonical-ntriples
[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html#conformance