W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: N-triples (1.4)

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:38:46 +0100
To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Message-ID: <24779.995557126@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

I've managed to update the document
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/ntriples/
with the notation changes you previously described, and with the
issues you have brought up, along with some solutions.

>>>Graham Klyne said:
<snip/>
> If you want to stick with just US-ASCII in an N-triples file then I won't 
> fight it, but my own feeling is that it would be easier to just 
> say:  always use UTF-8 encoding.  That seems fairly future-proof.

I don't mind saying N-Triples is UTF-8 since I've got code around to
do that and it comes for free with Java and Python for example.
However it just moves the escaping to a different level and makes it
impossible for anyone to generate unicode characters with plain text
(ASCII that is) editors.


Dave said:
> >How about just one escape \UXXXXXXXX for all chars not made available
> >by \-escapes or used in-situ - that seems more appealing for this
> >little syntax.
Graham said:
> Well, that could work too.

Yes, but is it better than my other suggestions?
I've listed all the suggestions in the updated doc.

> > > 5. eoln format
<snip/>
Graham said:
> I suppose, then, we must go back to allowing CRLF, LF or CR as a line 
> break, to be compatible with anything that can be served via HTTP.

which was actually where I started in the first version, Doh!

Dave
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 11:38:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:12 EDT