Re: Proposed NTriples changes for literal notation

>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> > 
> > Can't be (a) since the "" content is just a sequence of characters.
> 
> Oh, that's interesting. I had been assuming that it was well-balanced xml.

No, that's why I posted the proposed new productions to make it quite
clear:

  langString   ::= '"' string '"' ('-' language)

  xmlString    ::= 'xml' langString

and in the existing grammar at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#string

  string  ::=  character* with escapes as defined in section Strings

> So for you
> 
> xml"<"
> 
> is a plausible value. (Not representable in RDF/XML)?

Legal - yes, this changed NTriples doesn't care.  However: the
NTriples that are generated from RDF/XML will *not* generate such a
literal.

If we went with
  xmlString    ::= 'xml"' xmlExclusiveC14Nstring '"' ('-' language)

  xmlExclusiveC14Nstring ::= as defined by http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n

then there would be further requirements


> That's fine.
> If that's the case then:
> 
> > b) legal but different from xml("<b>foo</b>") (and not representable in
> > RDF/XML?)
> 
> looks like the attractive answer to my question.

It is an answer from my current defn :)

Dave