At 17:51 11/11/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: >At 12:31 PM 11/11/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: >>Hmm, the EBNF we are using from >>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-notation can't express the length >>restrictions of RFC3066 on the primary-subtag and subtag. >> >>so at best we can have: >> >> language ::= [A-Za-z0-9]+ ('-' [A-Za-z0-9]+ )? >> >>or if we go for lowercase only >> >> language ::= [a-z0-9]+ ('-' [a-z0-9]+ )? >> >>I'm prefering the latter I think; with pointers to the RFC3066 >>section above. The current N-Triples language definition is too far >>away from the RFC3066 etc. version. > >I don't have strong feelings here, but I note that RFC3066 explicitly >allows upper- and lower-case. That doesn't mean we can't be more >restrictive in N-triples. I think either of the above is OK. The abstract syntax is restrictive to a single case. I suggest we want the simplest possible mapping between n-triples and the abstract syntax. Hence, parses are expected to normalize the language code. BrianReceived on Monday, 11 November 2002 14:57:07 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:05 EDT